In article <362E634F.B082F881 at pop3.concentric.net>,
kkollins at concentric.net wrote:
>> if it's not clear that I was referring only to prosthetic devices (not tissue
> implants), that's what I was, in fact, referring to. ken
Will you have to establish a third category?
The following reply was originally sent on october the 21st/22nd:
kkollins at pop3.concentric.net escribió en mensaje
<362D24C6.6A725F46 at pop3.concentric.net>...
>While not saying that it's not possible to implant stuff in the brain
>even now successes with artificial cochlea, etc.), it's not possible to
>"re-engineer" the brain from without because everything that the brain does
>constitutes its own re-engineering of itself... so, if something lacking
>plasticity is stuffed in-there, that thing will be as an island of
>non-plasticity that just sits there, all "static" (not itself plastic),
>what would, otherwise, be optimized plasticity.
The aim of the implants we are talking about is not of "re-engineer" the
brain, but transmitting the data of the brain waves into a computer which
deciphers the thought patterns of the target. External manipulation of
behaviour and thought processes can be done externally without the need of
brain implants, by pulsed EM at concrete frequencies or simply by
>It's one thing to work to develop prosthetics with respect to organic
>It's quite another to invade fully-functional systems. While the former has
>purpose, and possible benefits, the latter does not...
Who is talking about possible benefits for the victim?!
Here you'll find a letter sent to the former pr. minister John Major by a
Swedish organization of human rights, plus two testimonies -one of them
related to the above document:
I would also strongly
recommend you to visit this site:
and/or read this
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own