Isn't it lucky?

Martin Brisbane mbrisbane at netcom.com
Sat Jan 11 16:05:46 EST 1997


Michael Hucka <hucka at eecs.umich.edu> writes:
> >>>>> On 9 Jan 1997, mbrisbane at netcom.com (Martin Brisbane) wrote:
>
>   mbrisbane> But where you say "subtle changes in various aspects of brain
>   mbrisbane> and behavior", I think you have a shade of meaning in mind that
>   mbrisbane> is at odds with our topic. Do you mean something like the way
>   mbrisbane> that sodium pentathol makes you talkative, and from a
>   mbrisbane> neuroscientist's point of view that "sure is a subtle change in
>   mbrisbane> function"?
>
> Well, you didn't mention anything at all about dictators in your original
> posting (though I see the implication in the very last sentence of that
> article), so it's hard to guess what's at odds with your topic.

I didn't mean that in a critical way. As to dictators, one who
controlled people's brains on a mass scale would fit the definition,
right? Well, it seemed obvious to me.


> Some other examples:
>
>  * Very low frequency sound waves (in the range of 10-30 Hz, if I remember
>    correctly) that are below the threshold of human hearing can cause nausea
>    and other discomfort in people.  Assuming such vibrations are not so
>    strong that a person feels them on their body, then, since they are below
>    the threshold of hearing, this would not be going through the 5 senses.

Granted. I'm told that's actually in use for riot control,
counterterrorism, or something along those lines.

This tends to support my thesis: there are people who would do this sort
of direct manipulation if possible, so it's lucky that that the brain
happens to be largely inaccessible. For instance, the brain is
uninfluenced by radio waves. Can you imagine if it were otherwise?

__
MB




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list