[whitey]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What makes you think that behavioral control would be negative? Every single person I know has at least one behavior they wish they could control. If people could stop smoking by flipping the "stop smoking" switch in their implant, they would, and it would make the world a better place. If a husband could flip the "don't beat wife" switch it would make the world a better place. If a young girl could flip the "don't get pregnant" switch it would make the world a better place. With all this good happening, a minor revolution to overthrow the government that tries to push it too far would be acceptable. The behaviors that cause us problems are all just body things. If we could keep them under control we'd have more time to think and be creative and happy and whatnot. We wouldn't suddenly be okay with someone telling us what to think. That's a silly thing to worry about..

I'm sorry, but the behavior control will be mediated by those ruling over every one else, not at the individual level. You need to familiarize yourself with the nature of power. You appear to be quite ignorant regarding how it works. Revolutions only occur when there are enough people who know wtf is going on to organize resistance. Given what I've read on this forum, even the "intellectuals" don't have a clue of what's going on.They're still debating left/right bullshit. Sure, I'm a paranoid nutjob...right, whatever.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nah. If a government actually could control its population with these implants, then it would immediately research the shit out of them to push the technology as far as possible. Once the basic tech gets out, all the other governments will use it too, and then they'll be able to get all the support they could ever want for their wars. Which means each side will try to upgrade their soldier's abilities as fast and as far as possible. Eventually the soldiers will have implants that "max out various functional skills" and then the technology will inevitably trickle out to the service sector, and then to everyone else. After that, well, all governments inevitably fall.

You're dreaming. As I said earlier maxing out functional skills is way more complicated than simple regional excitation/inhibition. This is a fact. The latter is all that is needed for exerting mass behavioral control.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Technology increases exponentially. For example, the human genome was sequenced mostly in the last half of the decade it took, because they kept upgrading their sequencing technology. Their ability to do the work increased exponentially, not linearly, so they weren't half done at the five year point, but they were all done at the ten year point. Exponential increase is hard to wrap one's head around. Another thing that brain upgrades could help with.

Sequencing is one thing, determining functional role is another. Similarly, the crude mapping of regions involved with brain function is one thing, and the integration of external devices is another. The complexity of higher order functions in the brain is a hard thing to grasp, which is why those of you who haven't spent years researching it don't have the slightest clue of the stepping stones required for integration of auxillary devices. Given the nature of the semi-hardwiring of the brain "new" functions will not be as easily integrated as functions which are similar to that which the region normally controls. There's experiments with implants for monkey's where they could control a robotic arm for example (this still involves primary functioning regions like the motor strip and NOT higher order functions). Like I said before, those who fund the research aren't about to give the populace something that could be used to remove them from power. To think otherwise is down right ignorant or disingenuous.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Meh. Everything is dangerous. I still get in the car and drive to the store, and I bet you do too.

I don't agree that every thing is dangerous. And of those things that are dangerous, there are relative levels of danger. Putting a loaded gun in one's mouth and pulling the trigger is more dangerous than driving a car, hence those who want to live don't do it.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seems unlikely. That is kind of like saying that we shouldn't hire someone to install a security system on our house, because they might come back later and rob the place. Does it happen? Sure, but not often. For example, the software running on your implant could simply ask you for a password before it runs anything that might control you, just like our operating systems on our computers do now. Actually, I have a hard time imagining this stuff will be implanted. I think it will be more like wearing a cool hat, or holding a phone up to your ear; non-invasive.

Again, familiarize yourself with the nature of power. Once you comprehend how it operates you should understand where I am coming from. Installing a security system doesn't have the potential for compromising one's thoughts/behavior. Implants are the most feasible. You don't have any idea how expensive it is just to have a full head sensor array just to detect the magnetic fields in MEG. We're talking multi millions. To have the same sort of precision with injection of signal will cost a fortune.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Okay, so, SOMETHING warrants it. . .just not enough for you. I think the problem with your thinking is that you've latched on to one particular idea and you've imagined that it is the only idea anyone will ever think about ever again. That's just silly. People always compete, and they always come up with new innovations that make the last thing we were worried about seem insignificant. This continued competition renders the world a somewhat boring place. No one's ever taken over the world. Nuclear armageddeon never happened. Y2K never happened. Etc. Big, monolithic events just don't happen.

Some thing warrants it for people like you who aren't satisfied with who you are. Hell, it's taken me years to be happy with who I am. I see this situation as being no different from women who have self esteem issues because the media is pushing "perfect bodies", ample bosoms, young faces ,etc. Those people go and get surgery to give them what they feel will improve them. Guess what? Studies show that most of these people are STILL unsatisfied and will keep getting procedures done. At least in these cases what those people do won't affect me. Whereas, manipulation of cognitive states is ideal for manipulation of society. BTW, ask the descendents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima if Nuclear armageddon never occurred. And just because it hasn't happened globally yet doesn't mean it won't. The capacity now exists for it to occur whereas before people created the bomb it was still theory.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, but luckily there are OTHER people more powerful than me who specifically disagree with the other people more powerful than me. Their fighting between each other will ensure that none of them gets a permanent advantage.

What are these powerful people fighting over? Ruling your ass that's what. Their goals are similar if not identical, while the dispute is merely over who gets more power.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is where I stopped reading. You either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're too paranoid to think clearly. If you are trying to communicate something, then you use words with meaning. Since you used the word "totalitarian" and then immediately rendered the word meaningless, you basically just babbled nonsense. Saying "all governments are evil" would make sense, but saying that all governments are totalitarian doesn't make sense, because totalitarian is a very specific kind of government, and there actually aren't many totalitarian governments around these days.

The problem here is a fundamental one. I don't blame you for having problems with comprehending it as all of us who are under "civilized" governments are force indoctrinated in youth to accept government. Yes, all government is totalitarian. If the people in government tell you to behave a certain way then you will either face being caged, robbed, or killed if you disobey. This is a complex issue and belongs in another thread.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Just because you worked around technical stuff doesn't mean you don't sound like you wear a tin foil hat. It's like the doctor interviewed after the 9/11 attacks who swore he heard a missile flying towards the Pentagon. Really? Doctor training involves listening to the difference between passenger jets and missiles now? You sound the same way. MRI tech training involves techno-geo-politics? Please.

I could really give a shit if I sound nuts. What are the statistical probabilities that some one else on this forum has the same back ground training as me? Pretty slim, so most of what I say regarding cognitive neurosci. IS going to be out of your league and I probably will sound fringe simply due to that. Of course, if we couple in the fact that I discuss government from a perspective that isn't indoctrinated in the schools that's going to put me even further out there to those still ignorant of their own brain washing. I wasn't an MRI tech. Those are the people who keep the machines running. I was a researcher who used functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography to study the brain during specific functional tasks (which BTW requires massive amounts of time to do statistical computations and allowed me to read whatever I wanted if I had no other obligations). I've studied politics as a hobby for years, and considering my life is fucked because I've been cripple and unemployed for the last 6 years and a part time graduate student for 3, I have all the god damn time in the world to study what ever suits my fancy. I don't waste my time doing nonproductive things like watching tv, playing video games, or getting drunk. Does that compute?

[Dodeca]

Hey whitey if those in power are so powerful then could you give us a scenario of how you think the future will pan out.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[whitey]

	Originally Posted by Dodeca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hey whitey if those in power are so powerful then could you give us a scenario of how you think the future will pan out. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not a psychic. All I've done is researched how power is structured, the organizations which represent specific policy research and implementation, history, and a number of other things which together give me an idea of the direction of things. In a lot of cases, you can find open declarations of goals by people in powerful positions. CNN and FOX news aren't going to report this. It means digging through resources. As an INTJ, it would behoove you to do your own research on power and the nature of it. On other threads I've posted links to such resources and it always seems like a f'ing waste of my time because NO ONE responds as if they took the time to read the source, they just want to spout off some opinion. You want to know the intended direction, then try: BF. Skinner-Walden II, the work of John Watson on conditioning, Aldous Huxley-Brave New World, Bertrand Russell -The Impact of Science on Society, Council on Foreign Relations-Foreign Affairs. Those are starters.

This constitutes another data point for me to assess the mass behavioral response from members of the forum to my posting of these sources. If past responses are indicative of future responses, I'll get more opinions because they are more rewarding to the owners than actually engaging in the time consuming and laborious behavior of reading and assessing what was read and how to integrate it with what was previously understood .

[gwilendiel]

Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not a psychic. All I've done is researched how power is structured, the organizations which represent specific policy research and implementation, history, and a number of other things which together give me an idea of the direction of things. In a lot of cases, you can find open declarations of goals by people in powerful positions. CNN and FOX news aren't going to report this. It means digging through resources. As an INTJ, it would behoove you to do your own research on power and the nature of it. On other threads I've posted links to such resources and it always seems like a f'ing waste of my time because NO ONE responds as if they took the time to read the source, they just want to spout off some opinion. You want to know the intended direction, then try: BF. Skinner-Walden II, the work of John Watson on conditioning, Aldous Huxley-Brave New World, Bertrand Russell -The Impact of Science on Society, Council on Foreign Relations-Foreign Affairs. Those are starters. This constitutes another data point for me to assess the mass behavioral response from members of the forum to my posting of these sources. If past responses are indicative of future responses, I'll get more opinions because they are more rewarding to the owners than actually engaging in the time consuming and laborious behavior of reading.

Now I'm beginning to understand you, and I say you indeed may have a view worth looking at.
I think your initial assertions came across as somewhat vitriolic, which may have caused some to discard them.

But now that you present potential sources and a logic behind what you are thinking, I personally am more inclined to look at it now.

No offense intended to you whatsoever, you are entitled (obviously) to your view, which may even be correct, and to discard it offhand would be premature. But I'd say, to others it may have looked like you were discarding their view offhand, which would be unfair.

I'm not saying you did that, but just in all honesty you didn't help yourself along with the way you put so much 'charge' into things.

[Nemesis]

Actually, this is not all that far off. One of my friends is doing her Phd. with Dr. Naweed Syed at the University of Calgary and working on hooking single neurons up to silicon chips. This stuff is right out of sci-fi. Dr. Syed was featured in Time magazine not too long ago as the first person to successfully elicit communication between neurons and silicon chips. Here's a link to his page...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Truly incredible stuff.

[whitey]

Originally Posted by gwilendiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Now I'm beginning to understand you, and I say you indeed may have a view worth looking at. I think your initial assertions came across as somewhat vitriolic, which may have caused some to discard them. But now that you present potential sources and a logic behind what you are thinking, I personally am more inclined to look at it now. No offense intended to you whatsoever, you are entitled (obviously) to your view, which may even be correct, and to discard it offhand would be premature. But I'd say, to others it may have looked like you were discarding their view offhand, which would be unfair. I'm not saying you did that, but just in all honesty you didn't help yourself along with the way you put so much 'charge' into things.

No offense taken. I do get exasperated though when I repeatedly cite references and get opinions in return. If I come across brash (I get very passionate about some of these issues because of the time that I have devoted to researching them.) then it means I need to tone it down because others are less receptive to what I say then, thanks for the heads up.

On a related note, one of the things that I had observed while at the NIH was interactions between people from disparate fields who worked together to make a certain research project possible. One person had a medical neuroscience background and another had an electrical engineering background. Neither one of them "spoke" the others language. Mean while I could understand exactly what both were trying to say to each other because I had backgrounds in both. Here were two highly intelligent men and neither one was able to communicate to the other their issues on the project. It was the craziest damn thing I've witnessed and neither one of them understood why I decided to snicker during this exchange.

---------- Post added 11-27-2009 at 07:47 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, this is not all that far off. One of my friends is doing her Phd. with Dr. Naweed Syed at the University of Calgary and working on hooking single neurons up to silicon chips. This stuff is right out of sci-fi. Dr. Syed was featured in Time magazine not too long ago as the first person to successfully elicit communication between neurons and silicon chips. Here's a link to his page... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Truly incredible stuff.

Yeh that's still dealing with primary motor cortices though. Interfaces with primary functional regions are the first step in many. It's part of the baby steps required to get to the "function maximizing" that will take a long time, if ever due to the desired goals of those funding it all. Such complex research gets broken down to the point that the individual scientists rarely see how their work fits in the big picture down the road. It's just like military compartmentalization. I feel for those that suffer with disabilities but I still believe that, at this point in time, and maybe always, that kind of research is just a stepping stone towards Walden II.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...the behavior control will be mediated by those ruling over every one else, not at the individual level.

I'm pretty sure that later you claim you're not psychic, but here you seem awfully certain of your specific prediction of how a technology you keep telling us will be fantastically complex will be implemented. Just sayin', I believe you more when you say you're not sure how the future will look, than when you say you know exactly how the future will look.

That being said, there won't be a single, monolithic implementation of this technology. Even Microsoft never had 100% market share. And, even if someone did have 100% of the market, once you put some cool tech into the hands of billions of people they figure out how to hack it. So, even if everyone had these things, not everyone would be controlled by them.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You need to familiarize yourself with the nature of power. You appear to be quite ignorant regarding how it works.

I haven't been talking about power, I've been talking about a technology penetrating the market.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Revolutions only occur when there are enough people who know wtf is going on to organize resistance. Given what I've read on this forum, even the "intellectuals" don't have a clue of what's going on.They're still debating left/right bullshit. Sure, I'm a paranoid nutjob...right, whatever.

Okay, what is going on? Is it more than the simple "OMFG, PEOPLE ARE DOING BASIC RESEARCH! RUN FOR THE HILLS!" that you've been "explaining" so far? According to your expert opinion, this technology isn't on the near horizon yet, and there are so many other technologies that could also destroy our future, so why are you focused on this one in particular? What if the large Hadron collider creates a black hole? What if nanobots turn the whole world into grey goo? What if a terrorist sets of a nuke in Russia and their automatic nuke-launching-system kills everyone? What if an unstoppable plague escapes from a lab? What if peak oil shuts down the world's economy and we fight our way back to the dark ages?

Can you actually point to a conspiracy that is actively researching brain implants so that they can control the population? Can you point to anything more specific than the vague possibility that something bad COULD happen at some unspecified time, in some unspecified place, in the future?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're dreaming. As I said earlier maxing out functional skills is way more complicated than simple regional excitation/inhibition. This is a fact. The latter is all that is needed for exerting mass behavioral control.

For someone who claims to spend all their free time reading you have a real reading comprehension problem. Actually, that might explain a lot. . .

I laid out a scenario in which the research necessary for control of functional skills was plausible. Specifically, when magically-all-powerful governments want their soldiers to be more competitive so they can win fights with the other magically-all-powerful governments. Just imagine how much research a country could churn through if they had the entire population wired up to support the initiative. Once the soldiers have super-implants, the government will start giving them to the service sector; doctors and such. Then they'll trickle down to everyone else because they'll allow everyone to do more work more effectively. There, now everyone has implants that control functional skills.

That was just playing off of your idea. Personally, I think the research and exploitation of this technology will be in the private sector, and that it will never be used to directly control the population. We'll just get functional control the same way every other technology has matured over time.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The complexity of higher order functions in the brain is a hard thing to grasp, which is why those of you who haven't spent years researching it don't have the slightest clue of the stepping stones required for integration of auxillary devices.

I don't think anyone's actually argued with you about that. All I've said is that I predict it will happen as the technology matures. It doesn't matter if it's complicated as long as we have time to work on it.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...those who fund the research aren't about to give the populace something that could be used to remove them from power. To think otherwise is down right ignorant or disingenuous.

Yeah. . .the fun thing about science is that it rarely happens in secret government labs.

This kind of basic research can't be done alone in a vacuum. Scientists have to cooperate. But, to get other scientists to cooperate with you, you have to be worth their time, which means you have to publish. Publishing, making the results of your research public, means that everyone can benefit from your discoveries. So, even if you do take the last step of your secret government research into a secret lab, someone else can just pick up where you left off and recreate the last step. Or whatever.

I can see basic research being done in secret, but only in a private lab where people can get paid a lot more. Aaaand that brings us right back to my prediction that this technology will be exploited by the private sector. And they will have too much of a profit incentive in competing with each other for a single monolithic solution to allow anyone to gain control of the population.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't agree that every thing is dangerous.

Oh yeah, name one thing that can't possibly kill you.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And of those things that are dangerous, there are relative levels of danger. Putting a loaded gun in one's mouth and pulling the trigger is more dangerous than driving a car, hence those who want to live don't do it.

So, if I'm following you, you just compared researching brain imaging to putting a loaded gun in your mouth. . .AND pulling the trigger. Not just the gun thing, but the bullet thing too. Wow. It must be so much more serious than I thought. Please, elaborate on how basic scientific research is analogous to Russian Roulette.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, familiarize yourself with the nature of power. Once you comprehend how it operates you should understand where I am coming from.

Again with this.
Maybe I'm deluded, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of how power works. I also think that my analysis isn't clouded by emotion to nearly the degree that yours is. So, you know, take this lecture on how power works further if you can, I'm all ears.

Perhaps you could start by providing an historical example (from your extensive reading) of a single technology providing a government with a way to permanently solve a problem. Go.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Installing a security system doesn't have the potential for compromising one's thoughts/behavior. Implants are the most feasible.

Wow, really? Again with the reading comprehension. It was an analogy. The reason people allow someone else to install their home's security system is that once it's installed they can create their own code for it that the installer doesn't know, so the home is still relatively secure. However, the very nature of any complex system dictates that to use it there must be people who understand how it works. Homes with security systems is analogous to minds with implants (or whatever).

You are talking about EVERY single person in the population having this technology jammed into their skull. Well, all technology fails. Either it has design flaws, or a wire comes loose, or software glitches, whatever. If every single person in the entire country (world?) has one of these things then the largest industry in the world will be maintaining the things. That means an awful lot of people will be able to hack them, and those will just happen to be the exact people most likely to realize they're being used to control everyone.

See, the biggest reason I'm not taking your idea seriously is that you've only managed to present one idea. I've presented, like, a half dozen in each post. So I think it's more likely that I am thinking this through than that you are.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You don't have any idea how expensive it is just to have a full head sensor array just to detect the magnetic fields in MEG. We're talking multi millions. To have the same sort of precision with injection of signal will cost a fortune.

In all your reading you must never have covered the topic of technological development. Which, frankly, is amusingly ironic. Lets see if I can summarize this topic in a way you can understand. Hmmm, okay: technology gets cheaper over time.

There, that was easier than I thought. Rebuttal?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some thing warrants it for people like you who aren't satisfied with who you are.

Haha! This is a much larger topic but, yes, I'm not satisfied with what I am capable of at the moment. I want to be capable of more. As much as possible, actually. Specifically, thinking better.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hell, it's taken me years to be happy with who I am.

Yeah. I think that and back pain are the most common ailments in the entire world (universe?).

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...manipulation of cognitive states is ideal for manipulation of society.

As opposed to plastic surgery, yeah that makes sense.
It still seems like you're bypassing all the problems with the idea that every single person will have one of these implants, let alone that the government will use them to control everyone. Are you talking everyone in America? Everyone in the Western world? Everyone on the planet? How many people, do you think, would it take for this plan to work? Would a government that used this final solution have to stop allowing tourism and immigration? Would every one of their citizens have to remain in the country? What if a mind-controlled citizen visited another country and their implant broke, so someone in that country (free of mind control) had to fix it and they discovered the mind-control angle? It would take approximately a micro-second for that to get out and for the non-mind controlled countries to want to help the mind-controlled one. Just as an example.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	BTW, ask the descendents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima if Nuclear armageddon never occurred. And just because it hasn't happened globally yet doesn't mean it won't. The capacity now exists for it to occur whereas before people created the bomb it was still theory.

Two bombs is not Armageddon. This is a perfect example of your seeming inability to comprehend what you're reading, or to talk about it without distortion. Here's a free tip: actually understanding how the world works requires a large measure of humility and subtle abstract thought. You have to be able to entertain the possibility that things are not as they appear because you have misunderstood them. When I can manage to understand the difference between two nukes and a planet full of nukes going off, and you just round both events off to the same thing, I start to seriously doubt that you have thought about other topics any better. Like, just for example, mind-control implants.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What are these powerful people fighting over? Ruling your ass that's what. Their goals are similar if not identical, while the dispute is merely over who gets more power.

Sure, why not. I don't want responsibility for the entire world, but I'm sure some people do. The good thing for me is that those people are always challenged by other people who want to be king of the hill. No power structure lasts forever. Or did you miss that when you were researching how power works?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem here is a fundamental one. I don't blame you for having problems with comprehending it as all of us who are under "civilized" governments are force indoctrinated in youth to accept government.

So. . .my forced indoctrination blinded me to the possibility of understanding that everyone will get a mind-control implant and the government will reign supreme forever?

I don't think I was successfully indoctrinated. I like to think that I'm a bit of a free thinker. But, you know, I was probably indoctrinated to think that. Anywho, government is good because without it we'd all live in caves and die at 25. That's another much larger topic. Even bad government tends to keep more people alive than no government at all.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, all government is totalitarian.

Wow.
Totalitarian: of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The following are examples of political systems, some of which are typically mutually exclusive, while others may (or may not) overlap in various combinations...
* Anarchism
* Democracy
* Monarchy
* Meritocracy
o Technocracy
* Republic.
* Sultanates
* Islamic Democracy
* Theocracy
* Westminster system
* Feudalism" Etc

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Forms of government run all the way from authoritarian to videocracy.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the people in government tell you to behave a certain way then you will either face being caged, robbed, or killed if you disobey. This is a complex issue and belongs in another thread.

No it doesn't, you're just wrong. Totalitarian is one approach to government, it is not the only approach. In fact, it is becoming less popular over time. So, you know, stop oversimplifying.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I could really give a shit if I sound nuts.

Well, okay. But that's not a rebuttal. It's more of an admission. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you tell them that you don't care if you sound crazy? You should. People won't listen to you if they think you're crazy. Maybe you should try easing into the topic more gradually, so that people can't help but agree with each step you take. That way when they reach a conclusion that sounds crazy, they will at least know that all the steps leading up to it made sense, so maybe they should look at it again.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What are the statistical probabilities that some one else on this forum has the same back ground training as me? Pretty slim, so most of what I say regarding cognitive neurosci. IS going to be out of your league and I probably will sound fringe simply due to that.

Nah, you sound full of yourself, not fringe.
Stop citing your technical expertise as evidence to support your conclusion in an entirely different area. It's like the engineers who swear that the government blew up the WTC because they totally know what a building should look like when a plane runs into it, and it totally didn't look like that, therefore the obvious conclusion is that the government staged the whole thing. You're saying that you're an expert on A, and then jumping to Z.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course, if we couple in the fact that I discuss government from a perspective that isn't indoctrinated in the schools that's going to put me even further out there to those still ignorant of their own brain washing.

I think you're just stuck on this mind-control idea. You seem to think that the government is already controlling us, so it makes perfect sense that they'd try to control us better with new technology. Here's a free tip: always assume incompetence before malice. If what is happening can be explained by laziness, inattention, stupidity, weakness, etc then that's probably the correct explanation.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't waste my time doing nonproductive things like watching tv, playing video games, or getting drunk. Does that compute?

Maybe you should. It sounds like you need to get out and unwind a bit. Also, it's funny that you would talk to me like I'm a robot (compute) when you are the one claiming to never do anything frivolously human like play video games. Projecting much?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not a psychic.

Ah, there it is. I knew you said that somewhere.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In a lot of cases, you can find open declarations of goals by people in powerful positions.

Like?
This would be a really good place to cite some examples of the evidence that lead you to your conclusions.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	CNN and FOX news aren't going to report this. It means digging through resources. As an INTJ, it would behoove you to do your own research on power and the nature of it.

No points for telling us the mainstream media is useless. Everyone on the forum already agrees on that. But you get a point for using the word "behoove" in a sentence. I think the last time I heard someone use that word was in an old Laugh In sketch (It'll behoove ya, to care for your uvula) or something like that.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You want to know the intended direction, then try: BF. Skinner-Walden II, the work of John Watson on conditioning, Aldous Huxley-Brave New World, Bertrand Russell -The Impact of Science on Society, Council on Foreign Relations-Foreign Affairs. Those are starters.

So. . .when someone asks you to point to something that supports your conclusion you respond with a week of reading material? Yeah, that's called "not having anything to support your conclusion." I could simply rebut this by listing some books and some researchers who disagree with the ones you listed. So lets just say I did, and your sources are rebutted.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If past responses are indicative of future responses, I'll get more opinions because they are more rewarding to the owners than actually engaging in the time consuming and laborious behavior of reading and assessing what was read and how to integrate it with what was previously understood .

There's an alternate explanation. Maybe they've already "read, assessed and integrated" and they reached different conclusions. Maybe the people who disagree with you aren't completely uninformed fools. But, hey, I can see who assuming that is "more rewarding" for you.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do get exasperated...If I come across brash (I get very passionate...I need to tone it down because others are less receptive to what I say then, thanks for the heads up.

Seriously? You needed someone to point that out to you?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Such complex research gets broken down to the point that the individual scientists rarely see how their work fits in the big picture down the road. It's just like military compartmentalization.

What is "military compartmentalization?" I googled it and found this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). I'm assuming you are referring to the various levels of security clearances, which isn't just a military thing, although it is more exciting to relate your ideas to the military.

There's another explanation: that's just how progress happens. When a topic is big and subtle people work on discreet little pockets of it until they make a small advance. It takes a lot of people a long time to get somewhere practical. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the scientific method in practice.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I feel for those that suffer with disabilities but I still believe that, at this point in time, and maybe always, that kind of research is just a stepping stone towards Walden II.

Again, could you go into more depth regarding how you think the government will gain control of everyone through implants? It sounds to me like you're saying we shouldn't fix people with disabilities, even though we could, because it WILL lead to a dystopia. Not that it might, but that it will. I don't see how you are linking the two ideas so concretely.

[whitey]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm pretty sure that later you claim you're not psychic, but here you seem awfully certain of your specific prediction of how a technology you keep telling us will be fantastically complex will be implemented. Just sayin', I believe you more when you say you're not sure how the future will look, than when you say you know exactly how the future will look. That being said, there won't be a single, monolithic implementation of this technology. Even Microsoft never had 100% market share. And, even if someone did have 100% of the market, once you put some cool tech into the hands of billions of people they figure out how to hack it. So, even if everyone had these things, not everyone would be controlled by them.

It's not a prediction. It's what others driving the science have stated. Look at my references in my other message to "gwilendiel".

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I haven't been talking about power, I've been talking about a technology penetrating the market.

Power is a mediating factor for that which hits the market. Therefore it behooves an individual to be familiar with how it does so.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Okay, what is going on? Is it more than the simple "OMFG, PEOPLE ARE DOING BASIC RESEARCH! RUN FOR THE HILLS!" that you've been "explaining" so far? According to your expert opinion, this technology isn't on the near horizon yet, and there are so many other technologies that could also destroy our future, so why are you focused on this one in particular? What if the large Hadron collider creates a black hole? What if nanobots turn the whole world into grey goo? What if a terrorist sets of a nuke in Russia and their automatic nuke-launching-system kills everyone? What if an unstoppable plague escapes from a lab? What if peak oil shuts down the world's economy and we fight our way back to the dark ages?

If you read the threads first message you'll see that this brain chip technology is the topic. I'm staying on topic. I think the nanobots might be the only thing on topic from that set of questions but even then it depends on their function.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can you actually point to a conspiracy that is actively researching brain implants so that they can control the population? Can you point to anything more specific than the vague possibility that something bad COULD happen at some unspecified time, in some unspecified place, in the future?

Refer to the previously mentioned list of sources to "gwilendiel" in this thread. The material is quite dry but highly informative. I don't think that brain chips are a vague possibility, I think that they are a definite probability given par for the course. It's a specific issue; however, predicting the date for its completion is not possible or even reasonable to guess at.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For someone who claims to spend all their free time reading you have a real reading comprehension problem. Actually, that might explain a lot. . . I laid out a scenario in which the research necessary for control of functional skills was plausible. Specifically, when magically-all-powerful governments want their soldiers to be more competitive so they can win fights with the other magically-all-powerful governments. Just imagine how much research a country could churn through if they had the entire population wired up to support the initiative. Once the soldiers have super-implants, the government will start giving them to the service sector; doctors and such. Then they'll trickle down to everyone else because they'll allow everyone to do more work more effectively. There, now everyone has implants that control functional skills. That was just playing off of your idea. Personally, I think the research and exploitation of this technology will be in the private sector, and that it will never be used to directly control the population. We'll just get functional control the same way every other technology has matured over time.

I don't find your entire scenario to be plausible. And I have tried to point out, but I guess it didn't register, that to give soldiers a competitive boost, FIRST primitive regional excitation/inhibition technology would need to be invented. And I don't see technology for the masses going beyond this due to the aforementioned citations.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think anyone's actually argued with you about that. All I've said is that I predict it will happen as the technology matures. It doesn't matter if it's complicated as long as we have time to work on it.

The only way civilians would be given access to enhancing functional skills with chips is if they are already or will be, under behavioral control through chips. This is a primary goal, a stepping stone on the way to enhanced cognitive functioning, and once that goal is achieved those in power would feel comfortable enough to even consider "upgrading" the population.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah. . .the fun thing about science is that it rarely happens in secret government labs. This kind of basic research can't be done alone in a vacuum. Scientists have to cooperate. But, to get other scientists to cooperate with you, you have to be worth their time, which means you have to publish. Publishing, making the results of your research public, means that everyone can benefit from your discoveries. So, even if you do take the last step of your secret government research into a secret lab, someone else can just pick up where you left off and recreate the last step. Or whatever. I can see basic research being done in secret, but only in a private lab where people can get paid a lot more. Aaaand that brings us right back to my prediction that this technology will be exploited by the private sector. And they will have too much of a profit incentive in competing with each other for a single monolithic solution to allow anyone to gain control of the population.

I've never said nor implied that this science only happens in secret labs <boogah boogah catch phrase>. The kind of research that lays the foundation for these devices is being done right now, in public labs on the Bethesda, Maryland NIH campus. It's not secret. One just has to be familiar with it and understand how it fits in the big picture.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh yeah, name one thing that can't possibly kill you.

Flatulence. Oh wait, I think I have heard of someone dying by gassing themselves to death due to a poor diet. How about, picking ones nose?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, if I'm following you, you just compared researching brain imaging to putting a loaded gun in your mouth. . .AND pulling the trigger. Not just the gun thing, but the bullet thing too. Wow. It must be so much more serious than I thought. Please, elaborate on how basic scientific research is analogous to Russian Roulette.

You made the claim that every thing was dangerous, even driving a car. I was pointing out the difference in relative danger with the loaded gun. Go read the sources I cited if you want to know how science can be dangerous.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Again with this. Maybe I'm deluded, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of how power works. I also think that my analysis isn't clouded by emotion to nearly the degree that yours is. So, you know, take this lecture on how power works further if you can, I'm all ears. Perhaps you could start by providing an historical example (from your extensive reading) of a single technology providing a government with a way to permanently solve a problem. Go.

You're not deluded, just ignorant. But that can be remedied by checking out the sources I cited. I'm not going to spoon feed you as you are perfectly capable of reading.

I don't know if permanent is possible since things are subject to the sands of time, but irrigation seems like a pretty basic technology that has helped governments.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wow, really? Again with the reading comprehension. It was an analogy. The reason people allow someone else to install their home's security system is that once it's installed they can create their own code for it that the installer doesn't know, so the home is still relatively secure. However, the very nature of any complex system dictates that to use it there must be people who understand how it works. Homes with security systems is analogous to minds with implants (or whatever). You are talking about EVERY single person in the population having this technology jammed into their skull. Well, all technology fails. Either it has design flaws, or a wire comes loose, or software glitches, whatever. If every single person in the entire country (world?) has one of these things then the largest industry in the world will be maintaining the things. That means an awful lot of people will be able to hack them, and those will just happen to be the exact people most likely to realize they're being used to control everyone. See, the biggest reason I'm not taking your idea seriously is that you've only managed to present one idea. I've presented, like, a half dozen in each post. So I think it's more likely that I am thinking this through than that you are.

I know it was an analogy and I was pointing out the problem, as I see it, with the analogy. In your analogy, you presume that an implant does not have hardcoded features that can compromise the individual's mind. So as I pointed out, a security system has NO way of compromising some ones mind, whereas an implant can. What you see isn't always what you get.

I've never claimed every single person will get this technology. You presume that individuals with such devices will still have "free will" to go and hack the devices. Don't take me seriously. I'm not taking you seriously. You've ignored things that I've said in some posts, while putting things in my mouth, and creating scenario's with flawed presumptions. I think my boldest claim has been that there are goals of using such technology to enslave people, and I've cited sources from which I base my claim. I can't help it if you're completely ignorant of the material which backs up my claims. Maybe you'll look some of it up, maybe you won't.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In all your reading you must never have covered the topic of technological development. Which, frankly, is amusingly ironic. Lets see if I can summarize this topic in a way you can understand. Hmmm, okay: technology gets cheaper over time.

Price is one factor amongst many others. I don't anticipate the price dropping for SQUID arrays the way it does for home PCs. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please educate me.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah. I think that and back pain are the most common ailments in the entire world (universe?).

I'd say the world since we have no clue if any one else is out there and if we are out numbered in our woes.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As opposed to plastic surgery, yeah that makes sense. It still seems like you're bypassing all the problems with the idea that every single person will have one of these implants, let alone that the government will use them to control everyone. Are you talking everyone in America? Everyone in the Western world? Everyone on the planet? How many people, do you think, would it take for this plan to work? Would a government that used this final solution have to stop allowing tourism and immigration? Would every one of their citizens have to remain in the country? What if a mind-controlled citizen visited another country and their implant broke, so someone in that country (free of mind control) had to fix it and they discovered the mind-control angle? It would take approximately a micro-second for that to get out and for the non-mind controlled countries to want to help the mind-controlled one. Just as an example.

I've never said every single person will have one of those things. Look through my responses that claim isn't there. It is a goal not a given. The goal is for the common masses to be plugged in. Go read the sources I cited. Most of the western world is already subject to heavy attitude conditioning to the point that their beliefs do not align with reality. Guessing the numbers of people involved is an exercise in futility. The remainder of your questions can be addressed if you choose to research the issue. I would think that a nobel laureate discussing the issue of the impact of science on society would be more interesting to read than discussing the issues with me, an anonymous know nothing.

[Dodeca]

O.K. whitey. Let me make you a promise. I will refuse the brain chip. There problem solved.

[whitey]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Two bombs is not Armageddon. This is a perfect example of your seeming inability to comprehend what you're reading, or to talk about it without distortion. Here's a free tip: actually understanding how the world works requires a large measure of humility and subtle abstract thought. You have to be able to entertain the possibility that things are not as they appear because you have misunderstood them. When I can manage to understand the difference between two nukes and a planet full of nukes going off, and you just round both events off to the same thing, I start to seriously doubt that you have thought about other topics any better. Like, just for example, mind-control implants.

Ar·ma·ged·don (är'm?-g?d'n)
n. 1. Bible The scene of a final battle between the forces of good and evil, prophesied to occur at the end of the world.
2. A decisive or catastrophic conflict.

Those two bombs were nukes. Some times words have more than one meaning. I was going by 2. I'll echo your tips right back to yourself. Doubt me all you want.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sure, why not. I don't want responsibility for the entire world, but I'm sure some people do. The good thing for me is that those people are always challenged by other people who want to be king of the hill. No power structure lasts forever. Or did you miss that when you were researching how power works?

I've never claimed that any power structure lasts forever. Could you please quote me on that or are you just putting words in my mouth again?

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So. . .my forced indoctrination blinded me to the possibility of understanding that everyone will get a mind-control implant and the government will reign supreme forever? I don't think I was successfully indoctrinated. I like to think that I'm a bit of a free thinker. But, you know, I was probably indoctrinated to think that. Anywho, government is good because without it we'd all live in caves and die at 25. That's another much larger topic. Even bad government tends to keep more people alive than no government at all. Wow. Totalitarian: of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "The following are examples of political systems, some of which are typically mutually exclusive, while others may (or may not) overlap in various combinations... * Anarchism * Democracy * Monarchy * Meritocracy o Technocracy * Republic. * Sultanates * Islamic Democracy * Theocracy * Westminster system * Feudalism" Etc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry but you're drawing a non sequitur here in the first sentence. And you complain to me about my reading comprehension
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. "..."civilized" governments are force indoctrinated in youth to accept government." You previously claimed that, "Saying "all governments are evil" would make sense, but saying that all governments are totalitarian doesn't make sense, because totalitarian is a very specific kind of government, and there actually aren't many totalitarian governments around these days."

/to??tæl??t??ri?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

Are you telling me that government does none of the above? When you were cutting and pasting definitions, why did you decide to skip definition #2? In fact, why are you making an issue out of nothing when clearly what I am talking about is definition #2. You had to read that definition to determine if it should be cut and pasted with the other 2 segments but you decided to reject including it? Why? Because it strengthens my argument and weakens yours? Shame shame! I think you tend to draw wild conclusions such as every one living in a cave with out an organized group of people telling us what's good for us. How is there any basis in reality for such a wild claim.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Forms of government run all the way from authoritarian to videocracy. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. No it doesn't, you're just wrong. Totalitarian is one approach to government, it is not the only approach. In fact, it is becoming less popular over time. So, you know, stop oversimplifying.

There's no over simplification, you just haven't properly organized the issue. At the most basic level you have self-government (anarchy) vs. government by others (totalitarianism). All forms of government that you just described fall in one or the other category. This is the fundamental difference between forms of governance.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, okay. But that's not a rebuttal. It's more of an admission. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you tell them that you don't care if you sound crazy? You should. People won't listen to you if they think you're crazy. Maybe you should try easing into the topic more gradually, so that people can't help but agree with each step you take. That way when they reach a conclusion that sounds crazy, they will at least know that all the steps leading up to it made sense, so maybe they should look at it again.

"I could really give a shit if I sound nuts." That's no more an admission than it is a denial, but if it makes you feel better you can think so. Do I care what some one thinks when they put words in my mouth? Hell no! Should I? It depends (is my life in danger?). The steps required for me to get to my current understanding of the world has taken years. I'm not baby stepping along that path for any one other than my future progeny. Others can look into the issues I raise and sources I cite. There's a lot of work required outside of this forum to research the issues and I shouldn't have to hold any ones hand if they are SERIOUSLY interested in the topic, especially INTJ's.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nah, you sound full of yourself, not fringe. Stop citing your technical expertise as evidence to support your conclusion in an entirely different area. It's like the engineers who swear that the government blew up the WTC because they totally know what a building should look like when a plane runs into it, and it totally didn't look like that, therefore the obvious conclusion is that the government staged the whole thing. You're saying that you're an expert on A, and then jumping to Z.

At what point have I cited my background training in neurosci to support conclusions in other areas? Please paste where I say that I'm an expert on "A" and then jump to "Z". You can't because I've never done such a thing. That's why you have to use A and Z because they are ambiguous.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think you're just stuck on this mind-control idea. You seem to think that the government is already controlling us, so it makes perfect sense that they'd try to control us better with new technology. Here's a free tip: always assume incompetence before malice. If what is happening can be explained by laziness, inattention, stupidity, weakness, etc then that's probably the correct explanation.

No I don't seem to think government is controlling and manipulating the masses, I KNOW. Big difference. And I'm not stuck on any thing, it's one of my main areas of research. You wouldn't tell a mathematician he's stuck on math would you? That's just silly. For some one who is in a graduate program for behavior analysis, it's the NORM to think about behavioral control. Here's a tip back: Assuming makes and ass out of u and me
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. As humans can engage in both incompetent and malicious behavior it is foolish to assume one over the other. But do as you please wise one.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Maybe you should. It sounds like you need to get out and unwind a bit. Also, it's funny that you would talk to me like I'm a robot (compute) when you are the one claiming to never do anything frivolously human like play video games. Projecting much?

Maybe you missed the part about me being cripple for the last 6 years. I'd rather engage in productive activities over non-productive. It's a simple preference. At the end of the day what have I learned that is useful to my long terms goals. Video games and movies don't fit in there.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Like? This would be a really good place to cite some examples of the evidence that ead you to your conclusions.

Like the citations at the very end of that same paragraph. I'm not spoon feeding any one. Read the material yourself if you're actually interested in the topic and not just arguing for the sake of arguing or engaging in superficial discussion.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No points for telling us the mainstream media is useless. Everyone on the forum already agrees on that. But you get a point for using the word "behoove" in a sentence. I think the last time I heard someone use that word was in an old Laugh In sketch (It'll behoove ya, to care for your uvula) or something like that.

If you want to examine attitude conditioning in effect the mainstream media is perfect as they use it all the time. You must acquiant yourself with the techniques of conditioning to be able to readily identify it however. The following might allow you to skip all the classes I had to take to independently realize that the media was conditioning attitudes. My excitement was ruined when I found out that my idea for thesis work had already been done stretching as far back as the 30's
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

"Conditioning and attitudes.Full Text Available Razran, G. H. S.; Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 24(2), Feb, 1939. pp. 215-226."
"The conditioned evocation of attitudes (cognitive conditioning?).Full Text Available Razran, Gregory; Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 48(4), Oct, 1954. pp. 278-282. "
"Attitudes established by classical conditioning.Full Text Available Staats, Arthur W.; Staats, Carolyn K.; The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol 57(1), Jul, 1958. pp. 37-40"
"Argument strength, delay of argument, and anxiety in the "conditioning" and "selective learning" of attitudes.Full Text Available Weiss, Robert Frank; Rawson, Harve E.; Pasamanick, Benjamin; The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol 67(2), Aug, 1963. pp. 157-165."
"Effects of subject and experimenter attitudes in verbal conditioning.Full Text Available Bryan, James H.; Lichtenstein, Edward; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 3(2), Feb, 1966. pp. 182-189."
"AWARENESS AND THE "CONDITIONING" OF ATTITUDES.Full Text Available INSKO, CHESTER A.; OAKES, WILLIAM F.; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 4(5), Nov, 1966. pp. 487-496. "
"The classical conditioning of attitudes: A comparative study of ages 8 to 18.Full Text Available O'Donnell, John M.; Brown, Mari J.; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 26(3), Jun, 1973. pp. 379-385"
There's more but reading a few of those should convey the fundamentals which can then be identified especially on news programs but not solely.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So. . .when someone asks you to point to something that supports your conclusion you respond with a week of reading material? Yeah, that's called "not having anything to support your conclusion." I could simply rebut this by listing some books and some researchers who disagree with the ones you listed. So lets just say I did, and your sources are rebutted.

I apologize for not being able to serve up complex subject matter in a main stream media sound byte fashion. You can't rebut what are stated goals by the authors unless you read the material and see that goals of tighter behavioral control over the populace were never stated in the books (maybe I'm just making shit up! Why not?! I'm caaaaarazy right?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There's an alternate explanation. Maybe they've already "read, assessed and integrated" and they reached different conclusions. Maybe the people who disagree with you aren't completely uninformed fools. But, hey, I can see who assuming that is "more rewarding" for you.

When the sources that I have cited have been examined and are found to not support my contention I am sure I'll hear so from those members who don't think that tighter behavioral control was declared a goal.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seriously? You needed someone to point that out to you?

"...when I repeatedly cite references and get opinions in return." Context is critical. Creative editing does you no favors.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What is "military compartmentalization?" I googled it and found this To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and this To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ). I'm assuming you are referring to the various levels of security clearances, which isn't just a military thing, although it is more exciting to relate your ideas to the military. There's another explanation: that's just how progress happens. When a topic is big and subtle people work on discreet little pockets of it until they make a small advance. It takes a lot of people a long time to get somewhere practical. That's not a conspiracy, that's just the scientific method in practice.

I'm not talking about various levels of clearance, I'm talking about compartments. Look up the definition. There's nothing exciting about it. I don't have any clue where you're getting this from. I used the military as an analogy because responsibilities are divided (ie: compartmentalized). Building construction is compartmentalized, if I use it in the analogy will that remove the excitement for you? There's no debate on this. There's no claims of conspiracy to create the compartmentalization. You are adding that on your own. My point regarding compartmentalization was lost on you. Compartmentalization makes it HARD for scientists to see how their work, integrated with other work will be dangerous for society. Given that most scientists don't bother to follow scientific politics they don't worry about their research getting abused because they wouldn't abuse it themselves.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, could you go into more depth regarding how you think the government will gain control of everyone through implants? It sounds to me like you're saying we shouldn't fix people with disabilities, even though we could, because it WILL lead to a dystopia. Not that it might, but that it will. I don't see how you are linking the two ideas so concretely.

The government already controls most people just not to the level and consistency desired. At this point, I could only speculate on how they plan to implement tighter control via implants and I don't see the point of speculating. I clearly spelled out in one of the messages on this thread that if I or a loved family member had some functional deficit due to brain problems that I think it is not worth it to humans on the whole to have research on such a matter because of it's probability of abuse at the hands of those who rule. Do rulers use arms to control their populations? Do rulers use arms to enforce their will? Would rulers be happy with 100% compliance from a submissive population? Would rulers like to eliminate dissent?

[whitey]

	Originally Posted by Dodeca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	O.K. whitey. Let me make you a promise. I will refuse the brain chip. There problem solved.

Glad to hear it
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Let's just hope we're not given an offer that we can't refuse
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[gwilendiel]

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Glad to hear it To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Let's just hope we're not given an offer that we can't refuse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

Heh.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I have to say, that I understand you intuitively. This is just out of my field (or fields)

I see what you are getting at, but from my view, the presentation remains hazy.

To really examine it, we would have to combine a lot of fields and make them work together, social and political sciences, probabilistic logic, game theory, and who knows what else.

Not that I'm using "it's hard to understand" as an excuse to dismiss it, I really am saying that it really is hard to understand, objectively.

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 09:39 AM ----------

Or, to extend the olive branch and look at this with seriousness, such as I can, I'll have to make some assertions.

Yes, I do agree, that mind control is possible, and has been used.
I do agree that some may see these chips for control purposes. I think that is inevitable.

However, there isn't necessarily a defined effect, and I'll attempt to show you why.

First of all, we are all individuals. Whatever entity we form, has a combined property of the individuals with their 'weight', or exerted influence on the entity.

The above makes society self limiting. This is why the madmen haven't taken over, because there's more than one madman, and even among madmen they have levels of influence.

Then there is the sane man, part of the open system (humanity) which exerts influence on the system (humanity) as well as their own entities which they are a part of.

Three men do not necessarily make a tiger. But they may exert the influence of a tiger, if they all agree.

[blueback]

This should be fun.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've never said every single person will have one of those things.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've never claimed every single person will get this technology.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ethics and higher level functioning won't matter when every one is being chipped with mechanisms which suppress those functions.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To top it off, how do you know that what the module is programmed for is safe for you? What if every one gets the latest "upgrade" and it's programmed to control you?

Yeah, you did say that. Maybe you'll claim you weren't being literal, that you meant “everyone” in a rounded-up sense, but if you don't clarify it I can only go by what you write.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	At what point have I cited my background training in neurosci to support conclusions in other areas? Please paste where I say that I'm an expert on "A" and then jump to "Z".

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've probably spent far more time thinking about these issues than most people posting on it since I worked in a functional brain imaging lab for a number of years and have published. There isn't going to be a reversal in intelligence by any means; however, there will be extreme behavioral control.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The complexity of higher order functions in the brain is a hard thing to grasp, which is why those of you who haven't spent years researching it don't have the slightest clue of the stepping stones required for integration of auxillary devices...those who fund the research aren't about to give the populace something that could be used to remove them from power.

Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I could really give a shit if I sound nuts. What are the statistical probabilities that some one else on this forum has the same back ground training as me? Pretty slim, so most of what I say regarding cognitive neurosci. IS going to be out of your league and I probably will sound fringe simply due to that. Of course, if we couple in the fact that I discuss government from a perspective that isn't indoctrinated in the schools that's going to put me even further out there to those still ignorant of their own brain washing.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was a researcher who used functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography to study the brain during specific functional tasks (which BTW requires massive amounts of time to do statistical computations and allowed me to read whatever I wanted if I had no other obligations). I've studied politics as a hobby for years...

Yeah, you did attach the idea that your conclusion on our political future is sound because of your expertise in a technical field. Maybe you'll claim that I'm quoting you out of context (I'm not), or that just because the one idea often (always?) follows the other doesn't mean you are relating them together, or that I'm ignorant of how power works since you're so fond of telling me that (I didn't even bother to quote the number of times you said it, I think it was a dozen).

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The government already controls most people just not to the level and consistency desired. At this point, I could only speculate on how they plan to implement tighter control via implants and I don't see the point of speculating.

But you do speculate on “how they plan to implement tighter control via implants.” To be fair, you mostly do it when you're trying to tell me that I'm wrong, so maybe it's my fault.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The only way civilians would be given access to enhancing functional skills with chips is if they are already or will be, under behavioral control through chips.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Implants are the most feasible.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In your analogy, you presume that an implant does not have hardcoded features that can compromise the individual's mind.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You presume that individuals with such devices will still have "free will" to go and hack the devices.

I'd be interested in you being more specific about the “they” who are going to control the general population. Oh, wait, here are some things you said about that:

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If there are scientists who are willing to bs you for money over the weather, then there are scientists who are willing to lie to you to fund their projects which ultimately achieve the goal of controlling humans via interfaces.

This makes it sound like you think the scientists are the ones actively trying to enslave everyone. But then. . .

Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You don't have any clue how goals in science are driven. You don't understand that most scientists are a tiny cog in a massive wheel and most can't see how they are helping to create some thing dangerous because all they do is work on some isolated portion of the problem. Most scientists are IGNORANT of this kind of thing because they don't THINK about it. They've got tunnel vision and most of them would never THINK like the people who set the goals and drive the course for research via funding.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not talking about various levels of clearance, I'm talking about compartments...I used the military as an analogy because responsibilities are divided (ie: compartmentalized)...There's no claims of conspiracy to create the compartmentalization. You are adding that on your own.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There's always people "monitoring" these things but they're selected because they will DO AS THEY ARE TOLD. You don't hold positions by bucking the system.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Such complex research gets broken down to the point that the individual scientists rarely see how their work fits in the big picture down the road...that kind of research is just a stepping stone towards Walden II.

. . .you say stuff like that, which makes it pretty clear you don't think any scientists are capable of being aware of the big picture, let alone consciously manipulating it. That's okay, tho, because you also mention something else. . .

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm sorry, but the behavior control will be mediated by those ruling over every one else, not at the individual level.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	All I've done is researched how power is structured, the organizations which represent specific policy research and implementation, history, and a number of other things which together give me an idea of the direction of things. In a lot of cases, you can find open declarations of goals by people in powerful positions.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do rulers use arms to control their populations? Do rulers use arms to enforce their will? Would rulers be happy with 100% compliance from a submissive population? Would rulers like to eliminate dissent?

. . .ah yes, “the rulers.” That's pretty vague, and you haven't elaborated on it. Could you do so? Do you have any specific people or organizations in mind? Anywho, while we wait for that elaboration, lets move on to to your original attempt at explaining the danger.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The kind of research that lays the foundation for these devices is being done right now, in public labs on the Bethesda, Maryland NIH campus. It's not secret. One just has to be familiar with it and understand how it fits in the big picture.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...this is extremely dangerous stuff and there is nothing, NOTHING, that warrants continued work in these areas. The benefits for the few who are damaged or born with problems are negligible compared to the dangers that _WILL HAPPEN_ if this area of science continues.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	One group of fools might be stopped in one area while another toil away, but given the nature of the risks for all of mankind it's worth either talking some sense into people or getting certain work shut down.

Okay, so you think that the basic research currently being done into brain imaging is going to, for certain, result in the secret mass enslavement of the population. Lets see what you have to say about that specifically. . .

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Determining what globs are locally responsible for certain functions, such as regions involved in self-control, or motivation, will make it possible for devices which would inhibit those regions.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	[regional excitation/inhibition] is all that is needed for exerting mass behavioral control.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The human brain is so complex that we only have ROUGH means of interfacing with it as is. That is about as far as we're going to go since that is what will meet the requirements for controlling human behavior via implants.

. . .so, specifically you think that as soon as someone invents a reliable way to excite and/or inhibit general regions of the brain “the rulers” will jump on the technology and use it to enslave everyone. But, how would that process happen? Lets see. . .

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I see this situation as being no different from women who have self esteem issues because the media is pushing "perfect bodies", ample bosoms, young faces ,etc. Those people go and get surgery to give them what they feel will improve them...manipulation of cognitive states is ideal for manipulation of society.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm sorry but [increased intelligence] isn't going to be useful to those who want absolute power over your behavior. You're more likely to see interfacing which provides increased attitude/behavioral control over the population. "Increased intelligence" is the public marketing side of things.

Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You may perceive advances, I see a set back for the individual. This agenda is being marketed as a way to enhance humans, while there are numerous ulterior motives, for those controlling the funding of such research, and that ain't the "taxpayer". There will be divergence in the research such that one pathway leads to tighter control over the masses and their behavior, while the other path leads to the enhancement of a select clique that rule over every one else.

Well. It certainly sounds like you think the ground work is already being laid by “the rulers” in a deliberate marketing campaign. This campaign is going to focus on making people unhappy with their current mental abilities, pretend to offer them improvements in those mental abilities, and encourage everyone to get an implant. Then, the implant will really be programmed to secretly control them. But, one could argue, there's no way “the rulers” would get away with a massive slavery campaign. Unless. . .what if they've already gotten away with it?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No I don't seem to think government is controlling and manipulating the masses, I KNOW.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The brain washing starts with government indoctrination in schools at the ages of 5-18 or so.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...all of us who are under "civilized" governments are force indoctrinated in youth to accept government.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The goal is for the common masses to be plugged in. Go read the sources I cited. Most of the western world is already subject to heavy attitude conditioning to the point that their beliefs do not align with reality.

Fascinating! It's not that “the rulers” will start to enslave us with brain imaging technology, it's that they are already enslaving us and this implanted chip will merely be the capstone in a program that's already proceeding successfully. Of course, no marketing campaign is 100% effective. None ever has been, and until everyone is chipped none ever will be. So it's not like you think absolutely everyone is going to get chipped. No, that would be silly. . .

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If only the suckers got an augmentation, then only they would be subject to a trojan horse.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Increasing the general population's intelligence does not serve those well in power...Couch potato, american idol watching retards are easy to rape and pillage. Why make them smarter? They might realize their getting f'd!

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Revolutions only occur when there are enough people who know wtf is going on to organize resistance.

Ah, yes. Not everyone will have the chip, just the ones stupid enough to get it, and there are so many of those that the few free thinkers left won't be able to organize a resistance movement. Okay, so when the enslavement is successful, what will the world look like? What's the point in such a massive project? [continued]

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You want to know the intended direction, then try: BF. Skinner-Walden II, the work of John Watson on conditioning, Aldous Huxley-Brave New World, Bertrand Russell -The Impact of Science on Society, Council on Foreign Relations-Foreign Affairs. Those are starters.

So, the general idea is that “the rulers” will maintain one system of education for themselves, and another for the massive slave population. Those in power will have free thought, but the powerless will be cattle, content to work their entire lives to support the powerful. This will result in a sort of evil peace, in which people don't really fight each other any more, but only because their minds are being controlled for them and peaceful solutions are forced on them through the control “the rulers” exert over them. Or, maybe they'll be forced to fight for the amusement of “the rulers.” Or anything really, since they'll have no ability to resist.

The main problem I have with this idea is that you seem to think it will exist forever. Otherwise it would be no worse than any other bad period in history that we, as a race, have gotten through and vowed never to repeat again.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've never claimed that any power structure lasts forever.

Oh, snap! You didn't claim that, that is true. So, does that mean you think that “the rulers” WILL achieve this dystopian future they are working towards but that it will ultimately fail and everyone will be free again? Or, do you think that once this technology exists that people will ALWAYS be slaves, forever, and that the only change in power structure will be “the rulers” fighting for control?

Okay, while we wait for you to answer my questions and keep the discussion moving forward, lets take a second (hour?) to revisit the reason I don't think the conversation will move forward from here. . .

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not a prediction. It's what others driving the science have stated. Look at my references in my other message to "gwilendiel".

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Refer to the previously mentioned list of sources to "gwilendiel" in this thread. The material is quite dry but highly informative. I don't think that brain chips are a vague possibility, I think that they are a definite probability given par for the course.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...I don't see technology for the masses going beyond [primitive regional excitation/inhibition] due to the aforementioned citations.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Go read the sources I cited if you want to know how science can be dangerous.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're not deluded, just ignorant. But that can be remedied by checking out the sources I cited.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think my boldest claim has been that there are goals of using such technology to enslave people, and I've cited sources from which I base my claim.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The remainder of your questions can be addressed if you choose to research the issue. I would think that a nobel laureate discussing the issue of the impact of science on society would be more interesting to read than discussing the issues with me, an anonymous know nothing.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The steps required for me to get to my current understanding of the world has taken years. I'm not baby stepping along that path for any one other than my future progeny. Others can look into the issues I raise and sources I cite.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Like the citations at the very end of that same paragraph. I'm not spoon feeding any one. Read the material yourself...

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can't rebut what are stated goals by the authors unless you read the material and see that goals of tighter behavioral control over the populace were never stated in the books...

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When the sources that I have cited have been examined and are found to not support my contention I am sure I'll hear so from those members who don't think that tighter behavioral control was declared a goal.

Yes. That is why I don't think you'll add anything new. Because you don't have anything new to add. You've referred back to your “sources” so often that you've got more references back to sources than actual sources. This makes sense, since your “sources” are all sci-fi in one way or another. You haven't referred to, say, a mission statement from an organization that wants to use brain control implants to enslave the population. Although that does make sense, since what organization would claim such a thing.

But, what does that leave us with? Nothing more than the fact that you've read a bunch of dystopian predictions of the future and taken them seriously. Do you have anything else? Anything at all? Anything besides some entertaining predictions? Anything concrete?

Aaaan while we wait for a reply to that, lets address some miscellaneous thoughts.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There's no over simplification, you just haven't properly organized the issue. At the most basic level you have self-government (anarchy) vs. government by others (totalitarianism). All forms of government that you just described fall in one or the other category.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic. Are you telling me that government does none of the above? When you were cutting and pasting definitions, why did you decide to skip definition #2?

The reason I didn't quote that definition is that it includes “authoritarian” in it, which I think is different from totalitarianism, because I think there are a large number of different political systems (remember, that is my argument). So, it makes perfect sense for me to not quote a definition of a related, but different political system. It would be like showing you a rectangle when I was talking about a square. You are familiar with the fact that some words have different meanings, right? Maybe you can start a thread to support your idea that all governments are totalitarian (haha). It's too big a topic for this thread. But, well, no, you won't do that. Because you don't think there's any reason for debate on that subject.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do get exasperated...I get very passionate...I need to tone it down because others are less receptive to what I say then, thanks for the heads up.

Yep. People are less likely to take you seriously when you are predicting the future from an emotional position. Emotions are notoriously bad at predicting the future. I remember a Daily Show interview with one woman before the presidential elections in which she, in all seriousness, said that she believed if Obama won the world would immediately come to an end. Her emotions led your predictive abilities astray.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think you tend to draw wild conclusions such as every one living in a cave with out an organized group of people telling us what's good for us. How is there any basis in reality for such a wild claim.

You're fond of reading, go read about The State of Nature.
But, because I'm not as full of myself as you are, I'll go ahead and summarize the idea here.:
Basically, it's a thought experiment. You imagine a single person alone in the wilderness. That person is no better than an animal. They will never enjoy a prosperous life, because it is simply too hard for an isolated person to deal with nature; they'd just be a beast. Then, imagine many people, but imagine that they don't work together. Now each individual is even worse off, because they have to worry abou the other people, who are still moderately more intelligent than the regular beasts. Then, imagine those people all band together to cooperate and survive better.

But, wait, they were fighting each other before, what changed? Well, the thing that changed was that they each gave up the right to lie, steal and kill to gain the benefit of cooperation. No team will form if the members think there's a good chance their teammates will murder them. The problem is that they all still have the ability to lie, steal and kill; all they've done is promise not to. Something needs to exist that can enforce the decision. And that is where government comes from. It enforces the social contract that allows everyone to live better lives together than they could have alone, in a cave.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As humans can engage in both incompetent and malicious behavior it is foolish to assume one over the other. But do as you please wise one.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Compartmentalization makes it HARD for scientists to see how their work, integrated with other work will be dangerous for society. Given that most scientists don't bother to follow scientific politics they don't worry about their research getting abused because they wouldn't abuse it themselves.

It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself here. When you want to tell me I'm wrong you say that there is no reason to assume incompetence before malice, but when you are describing something different you obviously do assume incompetence before malice. You clearly think that scientists aren't doing anything actively malicious, but are simply incapable of seeing the harm they do. It is still possible that they are doing it on purpose, but you assume they aren't.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I apologize for not being able to serve up complex subject matter in a main stream media sound byte fashion.

That's your problem. I suggest you learn how if you want to have any effect on the world. It's called an elevator pitch. You need to simplify your pitch down to the point where you can deliver it in a minute flat and it will make someone want to hear the entire thing in all its subtle complexity. Sorry, but that's just the way the world works. People only have so much attention available, and they aren't going to devote it to something that they think will waste it. YOU have to sell the idea so that people think it's worth their time. It's your responsibility.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you want to examine attitude conditioning in effect the mainstream media is perfect as they use it all the time.

Nah. We already know the media uses conditioning and all sorts of other manipulative strategies. You're not blowing anyone's mind with that gem.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Maybe you missed the part about me being cripple for the last 6 years. I'd rather engage in productive activities over non-productive. It's a simple preference. At the end of the day what have I learned that is useful to my long terms goals. Video games and movies don't fit in there.

I'm just saying you should give them a try. You shouldn't devote all your time to them, but the mind needs to be stirred up occasionally. Inject a little randomness into your life. I try to see a movie every couple of days because it gives me a chance to 1) unwind and 2) be exposed to someone else's ideas. I can mull the difference of opinion and learn a little something. It's the same sort of thing with video games, although those are more about improving at something difficult. It's called effortful practice. You can even read about it if you want.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It seems to me that the scientists who came up with the atom bomb sure screwed a lot of people over.

I disagree. They helped end a war and, to date, no one has used the things again. You know that people have tried to invent a new weapon that is so awful no one will use it before, and failed (dynamite, gatling gun, etc). With the nuke someone actually succeeded. I think it's good for us to be reminded of our mortality. Ultimately, all scientific progress is a good thing. I disagree with you that any particular advancement will give anyone an everlasting advantage.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If past responses are indicative of future responses, I'll get more opinions because they are more rewarding to the owners than actually engaging in the time consuming and laborious behavior of reading and assessing what was read and how to integrate it with what was previously understood .

Hopefully the amount of time I put into this response will upset your view of the world. As you can see (hopefully) I've used only your words and I've carefully laid out the questions that you should answer to expand on your argument. I did it all because I think it makes me a better person. This kind of stuff strengthens my ability to work through topics logically. It is my ability to do things like this, compared to other's inability, that helps me be confident of my conclusions. When I can devote this much attention to ensuring my conclusions are justified, and you can't, I am more comfortable erring towards the idea that I'm right and you're wrong. (nyaa nyaa nyaa
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

[whitey]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah, you did say that. Maybe you'll claim you weren't being literal, that you meant “everyone” in a rounded-up sense, but if you don't clarify it I can only go by what you write.

I did mean everyone in a general sense and I should have said "people in general" instead of "every one"; however, given that you have used one of my quotes ("If only the suckers got an augmentation, then only they would be subject to a trojan horse.") which preceded these latter statements, then it seems like the context would have been clear. As vehemently as I argue against it, I would think that you could also assume that I wouldn't get it, so I wouldn't be included in that general "every one" either. This is the kind of arguing to argue bullshit that I don't want to spend my time on.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah, you did attach the idea that your conclusion on our political future is sound because of your expertise in a technical field. Maybe you'll claim that I'm quoting you out of context (I'm not), or that just because the one idea often (always?) follows the other doesn't mean you are relating them together, or that I'm ignorant of how power works since you're so fond of telling me that (I didn't even bother to quote the number of times you said it, I think it was a dozen).

I don't see any support for your claim in those quotations. Your creative editing is dishonest. You have included some but not all of the context when you used "..." to omit "Like I said before,..." which clearly references earlier statements made in the thread NOT the paragraph. This is the second time you've done creative editing.

How on earth does the last quote in the block even support your contention? What I did before working in that lab and while in that lab helped to build my knowledge regarding cognitive neuroscience. Some of what I did when I had no other obligations (ie:letting the computer data crunch), was to study politics. Just because I filled my free time on a job with studying a different topic doesn't mean what I learned is invalid. Does that mean Ricky Bobby can't learn wtf happened in Nascar when he isn't taking orders behind his computer for widgets?? WTF? In addition, I've spent years of independent study of politics (which is where my political knowledge comes from NOT neuroscience), which you conveniently cut out of that sentence to make your dishonest point. How dishonest can you possibly be in trying to make your point? Isn't learning outside of an academic setting possible?? I hope so or I'm wasting a lot of fucking time. errr
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But you do speculate on “how they plan to implement tighter control via implants.” To be fair, you mostly do it when you're trying to tell me that I'm wrong, so maybe it's my fault.

I need to restate that. I don't want to speculate on how those who govern others plan to get the implants in people. It is not speculation that tighter behavioral control is desired and has been stated in the aforementioned sources. Shit, it's been discussed from the beginning of time really. Sun Tzu wrote on the topic. For these types of individuals, science is a means to an end.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'd be interested in you being more specific about the “they” who are going to control the general population. Oh, wait, here are some things you said about that: This makes it sound like you think the scientists are the ones actively trying to enslave everyone. But then. . . . . .you say stuff like that, which makes it pretty clear you don't think any scientists are capable of being aware of the big picture, let alone consciously manipulating it. That's okay, tho, because you also mention something else. . . . .ah yes, “the rulers.” That's pretty vague, and you haven't elaborated on it. Could you do so? Do you have any specific people or organizations in mind? Anywho, while we wait for that elaboration, lets move on to to your original attempt at explaining the danger.

More creative editing. A subset of the scientific population is interested in enslaving others, yes. But then there are those out side of science who also have an interest in "evolved" slavery. You're also drawing another non sequitur. I state: "Most scientists are IGNORANT of this kind of thing because they don't THINK about it." and "Such complex research gets broken down to the point that the individual scientists rarely see how their work fits in the big picture down the road". You said: ". . .you say stuff like that, which makes it pretty clear you don't think any scientists are capable of being aware of the big picture, let alone consciously manipulating it.". Emphasis mine. Notice the problem with your conclusion?

There are people spread through out positions of power who would like to achieve such "herd control". Not all people in positions of power are familiar with such proposals for control. Some are just useful idiots to their string pullers. The Ford foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and a number of other "non-profit" organizations are directly tied in with this. While BF. Skinner, Bertrand Russell, Eric Blair, and others are dead there are those who share the same beliefs/goals as them today.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Okay, so you think that the basic research currently being done into brain imaging is going to, for certain, result in the secret mass enslavement of the population. Lets see what you have to say about that specifically. . .

Incorrect. I think that the basic research is laying the foundation for a novel method of controlling the population.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	. . .so, specifically you think that as soon as someone invents a reliable way to excite and/or inhibit general regions of the brain “the rulers” will jump on the technology and use it to enslave everyone. But, how would that process happen? Lets see. . .

That process of getting every one, er...people, implanted is what I don't want to speculate on. Jumping into wiring every one up would be speculation. Goals are not always achieved through hasty means, especially goals of this magnitude.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well. It certainly sounds like you think the ground work is already being laid by “the rulers” in a deliberate marketing campaign. This campaign is going to focus on making people unhappy with their current mental abilities, pretend to offer them improvements in those mental abilities, and encourage everyone to get an implant. Then, the implant will really be programmed to secretly control them. But, one could argue, there's no way “the rulers” would get away with a massive slavery campaign. Unless. . .what if they've already gotten away with it?

That's marketing in general, if you haven't noticed already. Problem, reaction, solution. That's how many things are marketed, am I mistaken? Problem: Spaghetti falls in lap. Reaction: @#$! Solution: Tide! There are other approaches to getting the implants in people, but why discuss them if it isn't even agreed upon that control of behavior via such mechanisms is a goal? And yes, those in governing positions have already gotten away with a massive slavery campaign. The ball and chain is in our minds and not on our legs which makes it so hard for people to percieve. Get the children when they're young and indoctrinate them into being good little "citizens" (ie:subjects) of a corporation (because that's all a government is).

John Watson:
"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years. [Behaviorism (1930), p. 82]".

Now while Watson made bold claims about producing specialists (which would obviously be restricted to a degree by genetics), I will make a claim which isn't so bold. Submissive roles are conditioned into the majority of public school students due to the nature of the roles in the classroom. The students are submissive to authority (teacher) and if not then they are punished. This procedure continues until submission is expressed or the school boots the student. The procedure is repeated for ~13years. Most individuals who come out of public education are submissive to "authorities" and don't even question authority. Under the US government, what happens to those individuals who point out that the constitution isn't a binding contract (contracts must be signed by all parties and are dissolved upon death of party members) and even if it was, it clearly states that it applies to those who consent. Well, if you don't consent will those representing "authority" respect you? Hell no. Now days they'll cattle prod you into compliance even when they lack authority. Hell the other slaves will attack you for your disobedience to "authority". That's a pretty damn good racket.

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Fascinating! It's not that “the rulers” will start to enslave us with brain imaging technology, it's that they are already enslaving us and this implanted chip will merely be the capstone in a program that's already proceeding successfully. Of course, no marketing campaign is 100% effective. None ever has been, and until everyone is chipped none ever will be. So it's not like you think absolutely everyone is going to get chipped. No, that would be silly. . .

No I don't think that every one will be chipped. I think that the goal is to chip those deemed useful for specific functions. Straight out of Brave New World. Others will be dealt with in other manners. Eugenics never died.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ah, yes. Not everyone will have the chip, just the ones stupid enough to get it, and there are so many of those that the few free thinkers left won't be able to organize a resistance movement. Okay, so when the enslavement is successful, what will the world look like? What's the point in such a massive project? [continued]

You're putting words in my mouth with this conclusion. I've never made any statements regarding organized resistance. I also do not think that the enslavement of all the masses will be successful, but the woes that may arise during the attempt could be avoided, if people made themselves aware of long standing goals that have been published.

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 05:50 PM ----------

Originally Posted by gwilendiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Heh. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I have to say, that I understand you intuitively. This is just out of my field (or fields) I see what you are getting at, but from my view, the presentation remains hazy. To really examine it, we would have to combine a lot of fields and make them work together, social and political sciences, probabilistic logic, game theory, and who knows what else. Not that I'm using "it's hard to understand" as an excuse to dismiss it, I really am saying that it really is hard to understand, objectively.

It would serve me best to write up a lengthy article with citations and just direct people to it but if I can't get people to look at some of the sources that I have pointed to in this thread, which would be used in such an article, then I don't know if people would even go read the article.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This discussion does rely upon a convergence of fields. Just cognitive neuroscience alone relies upon a convergence of multiple disciplines. Would you have any recommendations regarding literature for game theory? It's popping up more frequently in my research, especially regarding politics, and I know it's going to be an area that I'll need to devote some time to sooner or later.

Originally Posted by gwilendiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or, to extend the olive branch and look at this with seriousness, such as I can, I'll have to make some assertions. Yes, I do agree, that mind control is possible, and has been used. I do agree that some may see these chips for control purposes. I think that is inevitable. However, there isn't necessarily a defined effect, and I'll attempt to show you why. First of all, we are all individuals. Whatever entity we form, has a combined property of the individuals with their 'weight', or exerted influence on the entity. The above makes society self limiting. This is why the madmen haven't taken over, because there's more than one madman, and even among madmen they have levels of influence. Then there is the sane man, part of the open system (humanity) which exerts influence on the system (humanity) as well as their own entities which they are a part of. Three men do not necessarily make a tiger. But they may exert the influence of a tiger, if they all agree.

I can agree with your approach to the issue of individuality. My contention is that the methodology of some of the madmen has evolved over time. The threat of force has always been a controlling factor, but now, with behavioral science, the modification of perceptions is possible on a massive scale via the media and conditioning techniques. So, what we see now, is that large masses of people share the same opinions on issues merely because it's been repeated ad nauseum in the media. Through the use of feedback mechanisms (polling) those who create the attitude conditioning can tweak and adjust what things get associated to manufacture consent (I don't know if Edward Bernays ever envisioned such manufactured consent). Take for instance the constant pairing of 9/11 and Iraq in the lead up to the war. There was no relation whatsoever, but through careful pairing of those ideas, individuals exposed to such pairing, who did not engage in deeper analysis, would tend to associate Iraq with 9/11. The strong emotions elicited by the latter begin to become associated with the "semi-neutral" (we did have gulf war I) Iraq.

Don't get me wrong. I do think individuals and groups of individuals can counter what other organized groups unknowingly (cogs in the wheels) and/or knowingly attempt.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The backstabbing and conflict behind the scenes does benefit individuals who don't want anything to do with the madmen and power freaks but only if they are aware of them (which is one thing what mass conditioning hides).

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I did mean everyone in a general sense and I should have said "people in general" instead of "every one"; however, given that you have used one of my quotes ("If only the suckers got an augmentation, then only they would be subject to a trojan horse.") which preceded these latter statements, then it seems like the context would have been clear.

It's not my fault you are having trouble presenting a coherent scenario. I'm just trying to help you iron out the wrinkles in it. Think of it as constructive criticism.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As vehemently as I argue against it, I would think that you could also assume that I wouldn't get it, so I wouldn't be included in that general "every one" either.

Granted.
I actually said I wouldn't get an implant either, which is why I didn't seriously think that you expected EVERYONE to get one. But, you were inconsistent, so it was worth clarifying.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is the kind of arguing to argue bullshit that I don't want to spend my time on.

And yet. . .
You can call it whatever you want, labels aren't inherently important, but they do have connotations. I call what we're doing a "back and forth" tussle over an idea. You presented your prediction of what would happen in the future, and I am trying to pick it apart. Whatever can't be picked apart is better for the effort. It's interesting because you seem unable to coherently lay out your prediction on your own; I keep having to ask questions and clarify details. But that's how a lot of my ideas started, so it's not a strong indication that the idea lacks merit.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see any support for your claim in those quotations. Your creative editing is dishonest. You have included some but not all of the context when you used "..." to omit "Like I said before,..." which clearly references earlier statements made in the thread NOT the paragraph. This is the second time you've done creative editing.

I cut out extraneous details. Again, "creative editing" carries a strong negative connotation that spins the issue towards some kind of personal attack. You really shouldn't take feedback on your ideas so personally; a lack of objectivity only weakens your ideas. I'm sure you recognize that in others, but you should also work on stepping back and seeing it in your own work.

Also, the reason I included those quotations is that in each one you first talked about your technical background, and then immediately talked about your prediction regarding the evolution of politics. Just like later in this very post you talk about how 9/11 and Iraq were linked in the public's minds merely by being mentioned together, without any sentence directly linking them, you (4 times I believe) stated your technical background and then your prediction. Learn to see this kind of stuff when you do it, as easily as when others do it.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In addition, I've spent years of independent study of politics (which is where my political knowledge comes from NOT neuroscience), which you conveniently cut out of that sentence to make your dishonest point. How dishonest can you possibly be in trying to make your point?

This would be a really good place to quote yourself and provide a contrast to how I quoted you. You know, instead of ranting emotionally. If your argument is so sound, it should speak for itself. You shouldn't need to shout it.

My point had nothing whatsoever to do with when or how you learned something. It rested only upon the fact that several times you talked about your technical background, and then immediately talked about your prediction.

Maybe it's just that the idea isn't fully formed yet, so you tend to explain things in the same order they come out of your head, instead of the more logical order. Well, that's what I'm helping with. Does your technical background really have much to to with the prediction you're making? No. It doesn't. No one needs any lectures on cognitive neuroscience to understand that exciting/inhibiting regions of the brain could theoretically lead to mind control, especially if paired with other forms of conditioning. And since you can't cite anything you experienced in your technical background that specifically supports your prediction, like if you'd met one of the scientists deliberately working on creating cyber-slaves or something, there is very little reason to mention it.

Especially since you frequently shut down any speculation that the technology would advance beyond the basic excite/inhibit stage. Which means you don't think there is any reason to engage in a technical debate. The fact of your technical background merits a brief mention to establish your credentials, no more.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Isn't learning outside of an academic setting possible?? I hope so or I'm wasting a lot of fucking time. errr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Silly whitey. Swears are for kids.
Seriously tho, losing your temper on the internet doesn't strengthen your argument, or your credibility. It only strengthens the reader's conclusion that you are posting a stream of consciousness without any forethought or editorial control. Tsk tsk.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I need to restate that. I don't want to speculate on how those who govern others plan to get the implants in people.

Okay. But that's a key step in the process, right? I mean, if people don't get the implants, then all the potential for the technology to enslave people is wasted. Not "speculating" on it is like dismissing how we're going to get to Mars with a hand-wave, and then claiming that we shouldn't invest in access to space because when we inevitably get to Mars "the rulers" will use it as a penal colony (or whatever).

The whole "implants in people" thing is actually one of my main objections to the whole idea. I don't think people are going to want to get implants; at least not in any significant numbers. I wouldn't want to get one. There would have to be some pretty impressive safety records and very impressive performance boosts for me to even consider it. I think an external "hat" is much more likely. And those can be taken off, and only have a limited ability to influence the brain when they're on, so they really aren't a danger.

So, if you had to speculate, how do you think "the rulers" are going to convince enough people to get implants for the slavery plan to work?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is not speculation that tighter behavioral control is desired and has been stated in the aforementioned sources. Shit, it's been discussed from the beginning of time really. Sun Tzu wrote on the topic. For these types of individuals, science is a means to an end.

Sure, people WANT more control; but that doesn't mean it's possible. Also, this is part of your wavering coherence, when you say "tighter" do you mean actual slavery like you've said before, or merely more control but that still falls short of slavery? It's an important point. I've already argued that a modest amount of increased behavioral control would be a net positive.

I think that if everyone in the country got brain implants, and the government used them to control people into eating healthy food and getting modest exercise (maybe even not smoking), and nothing else, that it would improve the world. So "tighter" control isn't necessarily a bad thing in my mind. Slavery would be bad, tho.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A subset of the scientific population is interested in enslaving others, yes.

That's more like it. Who?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But then there are those out side of science who also have an interest in "evolved" slavery.

And they would be. . .?

Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're also drawing another non sequitur. I state: "Most scientists are IGNORANT of this kind of thing because they don't THINK about it." and "Such complex research gets broken down to the point that the individual scientists rarely see how their work fits in the big picture down the road". You said: ". . .you say stuff like that, which makes it pretty clear you don't think any scientists are capable of being aware of the big picture, let alone consciously manipulating it.". Emphasis mine. Notice the problem with your conclusion?

Oh, so NOW you understand subtle differences between words?
I think you're a little too emotionally invested in telling me I'm wrong. I spent a not inconsequential period of time going back over your entire argument and re-analyzing it. In response, you replied to half of my points and spent a good chunk of that defending minor details or being passive aggressive. This sort of behavior isn't going to make anyone more likely to listen to what you have to say.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are people spread through out positions of power who would like to achieve such "herd control".

Specifically. . .?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not all people in positions of power are familiar with such proposals for control. Some are just useful idiots to their string pullers.

Well, technically, wouldn't that make them not actually in a position of power? Since they can't do anything without approval from someone with actual power?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Ford foundation, Carnegie Endowment, and a number of other "non-profit" organizations are directly tied in with this. While BF. Skinner, Bertrand Russell, Eric Blair, and others are dead there are those who share the same beliefs/goals as them today.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.
The Ford Foundation:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't see anything here about them even targeting scientific research. Can you point me towards what made you think they are trying to enslave us?

The Carnegie Endowment:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a think-tank and, again, I don't even see a focus on scientific research. Can you point out what put them on your radar?

If people are dead I don't think they'll be enslaving anyone in the future. Who is alive that wants to use brain implants to enslave us?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Incorrect. I think that the basic research is laying the foundation for a novel method of controlling the population.

So. . .you don't think the research WILL lead to the enslavement of the population? What about it definitely leading to a net negative effect on the world? You seemed pretty clear about that worry before.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's marketing in general...

Yeah. . .but you seemed to be specifically linking it to a deliberate plan by those who want to use the technology to enslave us. Are you saying "the rulers" who want to enslave us aren't currently marketing the idea of brain augmentation through implants?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are other approaches to getting the implants in people, but why discuss them if it isn't even agreed upon that control of behavior via such mechanisms is a goal?

I thought part of your thesis was that it was definitely a goal for people to be enslaved via implants. If it's merely a possibility then you seem to be backing off of your original claim.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And yes, those in governing positions have already gotten away with a massive slavery campaign. The ball and chain is in our minds and not on our legs which makes it so hard for people to percieve. Get the children when they're young and indoctrinate them into being good little "citizens" (ie:subjects) of a corporation (because that's all a government is).

So all governments are totalitarian corporations, huh? Oh, what did you think about the State of Nature and Social Contract?

I don't think people in America (specifically) are enslaved. I think they are under-served by their elected officials, but enslavement is an entirely different ballpark. Saying that indoctrinating children into a belief system is enslavement is saying that all children in human history have been enslaved. That renders the term "enslavement" meaningless. So, for it to have meaning, you'd have to be talking about something less extensive.

Have you dismissed the possibility that most people are more comfortable being told what is important to them than thinking for themselves? If so, why? If not, I think you should take the possibility seriously. My experience in life is that the majority of people really don't enjoy making important decisions on their own. They'd much rather push the responsibility for deciding what is right or wrong off onto someone else. So, it's not really a matter of freeing them to think on their own, it's more a matter of giving them something to do that is vaguely constructive.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Submissive roles are conditioned into the majority of public school students due to the nature of the roles in the classroom.

Yeah. Again, you're not blowing anyone's mind. Also, this is the sort of thing it's better to first ask if the other party(s) is familiar with before launching into a lecture on. You wasted your time, because I am already familiar with and agree on the point. The American education system was imported from Germany where it was specifically designed to indoctrinate kids into being productive members of society, by discouraging individual thought.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, if you don't consent will those representing "authority" respect you? Hell no. Now days they'll cattle prod you into compliance even when they lack authority. Hell the other slaves will attack you for your disobedience to "authority". That's a pretty damn good racket.

Has it ever occurred to you that if something is a "good racket" there might be a reason it continues even when you think it shouldn't? For example, the term "good racket" (ni this context) comes from organized crime. The reason organized crime has always existed in one form or another is that people have always been willing to pay for security. Security makes people's lives predictable, which is preferable to unpredictability. If you pay the mob off every week they will protect you from everyone else, and if someone else successfully takes advantage of you the mob will generally provide a sort of insurance reimbursement, not to mention revenge, because it is in the mob's best interest to keep you productive so that you keep paying them off.

This is roughly the same give and take that governments engage in, although there can be significant differences in transparency and accountability. The reason this give and take exists is that there just isn't any other way to organize things. It's a "good racket" the same way crop rotation is. It works better than anything else.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No I don't think that every one will be chipped. I think that the goal is to chip those deemed useful for specific functions. Straight out of Brave New World. Others will be dealt with in other manners. Eugenics never died.

Okay, this is a new point.
Who, do you think, will be targeted for implantation first? What functions would be most improved by enslaving those who perform them? How could a few people be enslaved without tipping off everyone else to the enslavement? It would have to be either subtle, or somehow condoned by the public.

Who will be "dealt with in other manners?" Ethnic groups? Functional groups? Luddites?

Who will be doing the chipping? Specifically, who will be organizing and managing logistics for the process of deliberate enslavement? It has to happen at some time and place. Or do you think it will just sort of evolve organically on its own?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're putting words in my mouth with this conclusion. I've never made any statements regarding organized resistance.

Yeah you did. I quoted your statement on it. You said: "Revolutions only occur when there are enough people who know wtf is going on to organize resistance." in response to my discussion of the idea that nearly everyone would have to be chipped to keep those unchipped from overthrowing the oppressive enslavers.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I also do not think that the enslavement of all the masses will be successful, but the woes that may arise during the attempt could be avoided, if people made themselves aware of long standing goals that have been published.

And we come to another new idea. You've never before said that you don't think people will be successfully enslaved. In fact, I'm pretty sure you said people would be successfully enslaved. But no biggie. Ideas evolve.

Where is this goal published? I hope you're not referring to Brave New World or some other sci-fi novel. What reputable source has said that it is a goal of a reputable organization to use brain chips to enslave us?

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It would serve me best to write up a lengthy article with citations and just direct people to it but if I can't get people to look at some of the sources that I have pointed to in this thread, which would be used in such an article, then I don't know if people would even go read the article. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've pointed out several ways that you can improve your pitch so that people will take your idea more seriously. Why don't you try some of those? Also, it seems to be the nature of accurate predictions that no one listens to them until they come true. So, if you do write up your prediction, and it comes true, you'll be in good company. On the other hand, if you don't write up your prediction, and it comes true, you won't have anyone to blame but yourself.

Actually, you might want to simply switch to a more receptive audience. The nice folks over at Stormfront would probably welcome you with open arms. It looks like this guy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is already warning people about a similar danger. So, you know, it's not like you're the only one worrying about this. Maybe a different audience will be better for you.

Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Don't get me wrong. I do think individuals and groups of individuals can counter what other organized groups unknowingly (cogs in the wheels) and/or knowingly attempt. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The backstabbing and conflict behind the scenes does benefit individuals who don't want anything to do with the madmen and power freaks but only if they are aware of them (which is one thing what mass conditioning hides).

It's amazing how nuanced your idea can become after only a few constructive feedback sessions. See? It's helping!

[Dodeca]

Being that I graduated High School in 2007. I can say that whitey is correct on every aspect of it. I learned shit nothing from my classes. In fact every original Idea I came up with was rejected by my classmates because they had become part of the system.
I wanted to developer Artificial intelligence when I was 12 from all the book I read in 6th grade. Even now my family is so stupid that they act like I'm crazy because I tell them they should know how much there mortgage loan is. I have to live alone on payments for mental disability because of all the depression I have.

Mostly the researcher I do now comes from Youtube. If your interested Here is my channel.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[whitey]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I cut out extraneous details. Again, "creative editing" carries a strong negative connotation that spins the issue towards some kind of personal attack. You really shouldn't take feedback on your ideas so personally; a lack of objectivity only weakens your ideas. I'm sure you recognize that in others, but you should also work on stepping back and seeing it in your own work. Also, the reason I included those quotations is that in each one you first talked about your technical background, and then immediately talked about your prediction regarding the evolution of politics. Just like later in this very post you talk about how 9/11 and Iraq were linked in the public's minds merely by being mentioned together, without any sentence directly linking them, you (4 times I believe) stated your technical background and then your prediction. Learn to see this kind of stuff when you do it, as easily as when others do it.

If you don't want to be called a creative editor, then don't take the 3rd sentence out of a 7 sentence paragraph and put it next to a fragment of the 6th sentence, which is missing contexual cues. That's exactly what you did in the 2nd "quote". This first claim has no relevance, researchers CAN think about the negative implications of their work for society, but most don't. One doesn't need to be versed in politics to do this. The fourth quote doesn't support you at all. So what if I discuss things from the perspective of a non-statist? My point in that final sentence "Of course, if we couple in the fact that I discuss government from a perspective that isn't indoctrinated in the schools that's going to put me even further out there to those still ignorant of their own brain washing." was that the arguments of a non-statist are going to be "out there" to a statist (maybe even more so to statists that don't even know totalitarianism = authoritarianism by definition). The fourth and final quote is another one of your selective context presentations. You cut out the context where I described having ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to study politics independently. You included just enough of that sentence to get the word "politics" at the end of your creative editing.

Regarding the 9/11 & Iraq claims, you misrepresent what I said (again). No where in my statement did I ever say that there were no sentences linking the two ideas (Let's call them stimuli. There are multiple representations (text,spoken word, visual representations,etc) of each stimulus giving rise to the concept.). Attitudes are behavior. Attitudes can be shaped through conditioning. The fact that an attitude reflects politics has no bearing on whether someone is qualified to measure the behaviors (attitude). I didn't make ANY predictions. Predictions deal with the future not the past. I can forgive your ignorance regarding this issue, but I won't forgive creative editing.

While I misspeak and have no problem with saying so and correcting myself; you creatively edit what I've said in a disingenuous fashion and fain innocence. You create issues from your selective quoting of content.

The cost/benefit ratio of continuing discourse with some one who is so blatantly disingenuous is pretty low. Sorry
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


(BTW: Of all the sources to look at regarding what I've said, you've chosen to try to associate me with a simpleton, racist website. Why not read Bertrand Russell's "the impact of science on society"? I would think that a discourse from a nobel laureate on the subject of population control is more interesting than a website with bigots. But discussing Russell's work, on population control, doesn't allow you to associate me, in an attitude conditioning manner, with a site full of bigots, eh? Shame shame.)

[gwilendiel]

Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It would serve me best to write up a lengthy article with citations and just direct people to it but if I can't get people to look at some of the sources that I have pointed to in this thread, which would be used in such an article, then I don't know if people would even go read the article. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. This discussion does rely upon a convergence of fields. Just cognitive neuroscience alone relies upon a convergence of multiple disciplines. Would you have any recommendations regarding literature for game theory? It's popping up more frequently in my research, especially regarding politics, and I know it's going to be an area that I'll need to devote some time to sooner or later.

What little I know of game theory comes from programming logic and simple dabbling, so I can't account for many sources directly but Wikipedia lists a lot:

* Leyton-Brown, Kevin; Shoham, Yoav (2008), Essentials of Game Theory: A Concise, Multidisciplinary Introduction, San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, ISBN 978-1-598-29593-1,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. An 88-page mathematical introduction; free online at many universities.

* Miller, James H. (2003), Game theory at work: how to use game theory to outthink and outmaneuver your competition, New York: McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0-07-140020-6 . Suitable for a general audience.

* Myerson, Roger B. (1991), Game theory: analysis of conflict, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-34116-6

* Osborne, Martin J. (2004), An introduction to game theory, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-512895-6 . Undergraduate textbook.

* Osborne, Martin J.; Rubinstein, Ariel (1994), A course in game theory, MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-65040-3 . A modern introduction at the graduate level.

* Poundstone, William (1992), Prisoner's Dilemma: John von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb, Anchor, ISBN 978-0-385-41580-4 . A general history of game theory and game theoreticians.

Just a semi-random selection of ones that look relevant, there's a whole lot more to choose from.

I can agree with your approach to the issue of individuality. My contention is that the methodology of some of the madmen has evolved over time. The threat of force has always been a controlling factor, but now, with behavioral science, the modification of perceptions is possible on a massive scale via the media and conditioning techniques. So, what we see now, is that large masses of people share the same opinions on issues merely because it's been repeated ad nauseum in the media. Through the use of feedback mechanisms (polling) those who create the attitude conditioning can tweak and adjust what things get associated to manufacture consent (I don't know if Edward Bernays ever envisioned such manufactured consent). Take for instance the constant pairing of 9/11 and Iraq in the lead up to the war. There was no relation whatsoever, but through careful pairing of those ideas, individuals exposed to such pairing, who did not engage in deeper analysis, would tend to associate Iraq with 9/11. The strong emotions elicited by the latter begin to become associated with the "semi-neutral" (we did have gulf war I) Iraq. Don't get me wrong. I do think individuals and groups of individuals can counter what other organized groups unknowingly (cogs in the wheels) and/or knowingly attempt. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The backstabbing and conflict behind the scenes does benefit individuals who don't want anything to do with the madmen and power freaks but only if they are aware of them (which is one thing what mass conditioning hides).

Yeah, I can totally see some of this happening, I'm just wondering to what level, and if it will actually be prevented. It seems if they already have control, they will simply get people to not only take the hardware, but develop it as well, possibly even use inverse propaganda.

By inverse propaganda I mean flooding media and entertainment with so much absurdity that it becomes a trope, and eventually people no longer believe the truth when they finally do see it. Like if you were to just flat out reveal a conspiracy in such a way that it makes it appear foolish and improbable, so that anyone who asserts that it is real will be deemed a nutcase.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

Look, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you're making it harder and harder.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you don't want to be called a creative editor...This first claim has no relevance...The fourth quote doesn't support you at all...The fourth and final quote is another one of your selective context presentations...

All right. I concede every single point here. I was completely and utterly wrong, I mis-characterized you horribly, and I take it all back.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Regarding the 9/11 & Iraq claims, you misrepresent what I said (again). No where in my statement did I ever say that there were no sentences linking the two ideas...I didn't make ANY predictions.

And again, I am totally in the wrong. You are right about this and I take it all back.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You create issues from your selective quoting of content.

Yeah. Apparently I "created" two issues. Both of them were related only to how you presented your idea, as opposed to the dozen points I made about your idea itself. Instead of addressing the discussion, you ignored everything remotely concrete, and zeroed in on the only way you could possibly have interpreted my posts as personal.

So I take it all back and I sincerely apologize for your bruised feelings.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of all the sources to look at regarding what I've said, you've chosen to try to associate me with a simpleton, racist website.

I wanted to point you to a specific thread on the website, which is actually the #1 result when I search for "enslave brain chip" on Google, but I'm not allowed to link directly to other discussion forums. I figured if it's the #1 result that probably says a lot about who is discussing these sorts of things. Why would you twist my clearly stated attempt to point you towards a more receptive audience as a personal attack? Google the key words you're talking about for yourself if you don't believe me. I'm just trying to help. But, since it hurt your feelings, I'll take it back.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But discussing Russell's work, on population control, doesn't allow you to associate me, in an attitude conditioning manner, with a site full of bigots, eh? Shame shame.)

Why would I discuss that when you haven't discussed it?

You're the one who says it supports your point, so just quote it or something! If you've already done the research, and if you're really as experienced in academia as you claim, you shouldn't have any trouble whatsoever providing a specific example of how someone who published before you supports your thesis.

But, no. That would be actually discussing YOUR idea. It wouldn't give you the chance to turn what I've been trying to make a rational discussion into an all-out attack on my character.

So, since I took back all the mean things I said (or didn't say), you have no more reason to be upset at me. Here are some questions you haven't answered regarding your idea. If you actually have any interest in talking about it then this should be a perfect reboot.

1) Can you restate exactly what you think the danger of brain imaging technology is?
2) Can you list any specific person or organization that you think is involved in making the technology dangerous and what they've done or published that made you include them?
3) How do you think people will be encouraged to get the implants?
4) How many people would need to be controlled, and to what extent would that control have to reach, for this danger to manifest?
5) Just how successful do you think the party implementing this control over their population could be if everything worked out in their favor and if nothing worked out in their favor (is enslavement inevitable or unlikely)?

You don't need to provide a graduate level paper or anything. Just give each question your best shot. You don't even have to provide any sources or cite any references. Just get as much of the idea out in a coherent order as possible and we can discuss it from there.

[whitey]

	Originally Posted by gwilendiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah, I can totally see some of this happening, I'm just wondering to what level, and if it will actually be prevented. It seems if they already have control, they will simply get people to not only take the hardware, but develop it as well, possibly even use inverse propaganda.

It's being done at a pretty large level. Consider the amount of time children spend in schools where they do things like pledging to a flag on a daily basis. That's blind repetitive conditioning. Then there's the issue of what gets conditioned via the media (tv, print, video games, movies,etc.). The last flick that I saw in a movie theater made me want to leave but I was there with other people. It was Ironman, and it had blatant propaganda to reinforce the notion of arabs = terror. Gotta reinforce simple-mindedness in the masses.

Some of the conditioning is extremely subtle. What you refer to as reverse propaganda is essentially what people like Alex Jones are for. People have been inoculated against the truth for all their life through the media. They exhibit conditioned aversion when presented with painful truths.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Consider the amount of time children spend in schools where they do things like pledging to a flag on a daily basis.

What, 10 seconds? Even if it takes a whole minute that's still only 0.07% of the day.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then there's the issue of what gets conditioned via the media (tv, print, video games, movies,etc.). The last flick that I saw in a movie theater made me want to leave but I was there with other people. It was Ironman, and it had blatant propaganda to reinforce the notion of arabs = terror. Gotta reinforce simple-mindedness in the masses.

Why couldn't it just be that people like simple ideas, and there are only so many simple ideas available? Us=good, them=bad is about as simple as it gets, and it's been universally popular for. . .oh. . .all of recorded civilization. Also, to be fair, Arabs are the main source of terrorism at the moment. So, you know, it's not totally off base.

According to your logic, absolutely any simple message could be called propaganda conditioning. Anyone who repeats a simple idea is guilty of attempted mind control and, apparently, enslavement.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some of the conditioning is extremely subtle.

Yeah. It's hard to tell the difference between "extremely subtle" and "non-existent." It takes an expert. Like, for example, tracking animals through the woods. Are you claiming to be an expert conspiracy tracker? I'm sure you could be, but you'd have to be able to demonstrate your skill just like an animal tracker could. I wonder if we could set up a test for that.

	Originally Posted by whitey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People have been inoculated against the truth for all their life through the media. They exhibit conditioned aversion when presented with painful truths.

Maybe they just have an aversion to pain in general. You're being awfully vague. Everything you've claimed can be more easily explained by, oh, common sense. It doesn't require a conspiracy, or any deliberate planning really.

People who want to sell things will try to get people to buy. People who want to get elected will try to get people to support them. People who want funding will try to get people interested in their project. People trying to influence people is not inherently bad. It is going to happen, and most of it will be a good thing. Which parts of it, specifically, do you think consist of people trying to deliberately manipulate the system to enslave other people?