IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Devices that read human thought now possible

r norman rsn_ at _comcast.net
Tue Nov 11 13:52:50 EST 2003


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:04:33 GMT, "Allen L. Barker"
<alb at datafilter.com> wrote:

>Kalman Rubinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 06:24:17 GMT, "Allen L. Barker"
>> <alb at datafilter.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>So now it's nothing surprising.  But people have been denying up and
>>>down that any of this stuff is possible at all, for years.  All while
>>>suffering victims tried to get people to listen to them.
>> 
>> Suffering victims?
>
>That's what I said.  The US has a long and sick history of mind control
>experimentation, as well as other sorts of nonconsensual experimentation.
>Victims tend to be dismissed for even mentioning such things, with claims
>that such technology "does not exist" -- even where it obviously does.  And
>there *are* real victims in the population.  There are even *documented* mind
>control victims who are nonetheless left to suffer and be considered mentally
>ill.  They were not even told what was done to them.
>
>>>*Of course*
>>>it is all statistics, once you have the basic measurements from whatever
>>>multiple sensor system you are using.  That and some realtime processing.
>>>What is "merely" about that, though?  And guess what, those secret labs
>>>do have sensors that are much more sensitive than what you or I can get.
>> 
>> Perhaps but not likely.
>
>You are a naive one.  Do you know what EWAR is?  Export restrictions,
>etc.?  Such research has been secretly conducted for years.  Do they
>let you know each time they break a major code, too?
>
>>>I'm not sure what your point is or why you seem to be defensive.
>> 
>> I have little tolerance for paranoia.
>
>You apparently also have little idea what is really going on in the
>world.  That is especially dangerous coming from someone with a
>neuroscience background -- though not really surprising.  What is paranoia,
>when they are looking to actually openly deploy such technology in
>airports in the near future?  Can people just be assured that Kalman
>Rubinson doesn't think it will work?  Talk to some of the victims who
>have long complained that exactly this sort of technology has been
>tested on them for years.  And please spare me the psychiatric illness
>cover story.

It is interesting that the professional neurobiology community is so
ignorant of all these nefarious activities.  All we know is that there
is no experimental technique that can read human thought.  That
includes EEG, MEG, fMRI, positron scanning, whatever else. Further,
there is not even any massively invasive technique (including
recording simultaneously from massive numbers of brain cells) that can
read human thought.

Some things are possible.  You can detect emotional or affective
changes that might possibly (but not definitely) be involved with
things like truthflness or lying.  You can detect general levels of
visual or auditory or speech processing or anticipate movements (over
very tiny time intervals).  But yu cannot read thoughts.

It is truly a fantastic accomplishment for all those military and
spy-factory researchers to have progressed so far ahead of the general
international scientific community and to have managed to conduct
their work in the strictest secrecy.  It is amazing that, given all
the known inefficiency, failures at secret-keeping, and general
incompetance demonstrated by so many US governmental agencies over the
decades, that this group should have prevailed so successfully.

I now fully realize what a naive dupe I have been!  Thank you for this
valuable lesson.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net