Would Remote Mind Control Be Possible With Current Technology?

^^ Yeah... "close" is debatable... close like we're close to building a colony on Pluto, perhaps.

Both those papers are proof of principle only and detailing research at a very very early stage... just because it's possible to get a lab mouse a little more or less agitated by shining light into it's brain, probably through optical fibres directly implanted into it's skull, doesn't necessarily mean that the government is on the cusp of using invisible lasers to read your mind or put voices into your head.
 
Abstract
There have been two recent revolutionary advances in neuroscience: First, genetically encoded activity sensors have brought the goal of optical detection of single action potentials in vivo within reach. Second, optogenetic actuators now allow the activity of neurons to be controlled with millisecond precision. These revolutions have now been combined, together with advanced microscopies, to allow “all-optical” readout and manipulation of activity in neural circuits with single-spike and single-neuron precision. This is a transformational advance that will open new frontiers in neuroscience research. Harnessing the power of light in the all-optical approach requires coexpression of genetically encoded activity sensors and optogenetic probes in the same neurons, as well as the ability to simultaneously target and record the light from the selected neurons. It has recently become possible to combine sensors and optical strategies that are sufficiently sensitive and cross talk free to enable single-action-potential sensitivity and precision for both readout and manipulation in the intact brain."

^From the second publication

@Vastness. That is not early stage research. When I read that it said to me we already have the ability to noninvasively monitor, in real time, neural activity down to the activity of individual neurons. While enjoying, at the same time, the ability to control the activity of said neurons with millisecond precision.



^^ Yeah... "close" is debatable... close like we're close to building a colony on Pluto, perhaps.

Both those papers are proof of principle only and detailing research at a very very early stage... just because it's possible to get a lab mouse a little more or less agitated by shining light into it's brain, probably through optical fibres directly implanted into it's skull, doesn't necessarily mean that the government is on the cusp of using invisible lasers to read your mind or put voices into your head.

You have to read the publications Vast so you understand what's going on as these fields advance. As far as not believing in the covert audio, that's bordering on chosen denial.. you can buy these fucking systems on the open commercial market.

Science moves so fast these days in so many directions. Impossible to keep up with everything.
 
Last edited:
Abstract
There have been two recent revolutionary advances in neuroscience: First, genetically encoded activity sensors have brought the goal of optical detection of single action potentials in vivo within reach. Second, optogenetic actuators now allow the activity of neurons to be controlled with millisecond precision. These revolutions have now been combined, together with advanced microscopies, to allow “all-optical” readout and manipulation of activity in neural circuits with single-spike and single-neuron precision. This is a transformational advance that will open new frontiers in neuroscience research. Harnessing the power of light in the all-optical approach requires coexpression of genetically encoded activity sensors and optogenetic probes in the same neurons, as well as the ability to simultaneously target and record the light from the selected neurons. It has recently become possible to combine sensors and optical strategies that are sufficiently sensitive and cross talk free to enable single-action-potential sensitivity and precision for both readout and manipulation in the intact brain."

^From the second publication

@Vastness. That is not early stage research. When I read that it said me we already have the ability to noninvasively monitor, in real time, neural activity down to the activity of individual neurons. While enjoying, at the same time, the ability to control the activity of said neurons with millisecond precision.





You have to read the publications Vast so you understand what's going on as these fields advance. As far as not believing in the covert audio, that's bordering on chosen denial.. you can by these fucking systems on the open commercial market.

Science moves so fast these days in so many directions. Impossible to keep up with everything.

I love it! Not that I'm not a little terrified, because I am, but it's amazing!

@Vastness this isnt just proof of concept, but I doubt it will be in commercial use anytime soon. After many more studies and years of research we will see it in everyday life. For the time being though this technology is accessible only to those who are making it, and maybe a couple more people that are funding it lol.
 
If that's not early stage research, I don't know what would qualify in your minds... The entire field of optogenetics is in the very early stages and nowhere close to any practical applications. For that matter, none of the research being done by any credible scientific institutions is working towards any kind of mind control or mind reading as y'all seem to be imagining - nor will it be for a long time. The primary practical use of optogenetic techniques today is purely for exploratory research in neuroscience in lab animals. The fact that bidirectional feedback is possible at the level of the individual neuron just means it's an extremely useful tool to study the brains of genetically modified lab animals, which will lead us to a greater understanding of human neurology. It doesn't mean we can tell what type of cheese these mice are thinking about. And, again, the subjects of these experiments are deliberately genetically modified so that their neurons respond to light - this is not something that can be triggered in an unmodified neuron.

Even if we want to entertain the idea of practical use in humans via genetic modification, our understanding of how to safely edit the genome of an adult human is still very very rudimentary, with even the most well funded projects to treat serious genetic diseases moving along at a glacial pace... don't even get me started on all the controversy surrounding "designer babies" although in principle it would be a far easier task to create a human baby with the appropriate neuronal modifications to respond to optogenetic signals... but it would still require invasive surgery to deliver the light signals into the brain.

I'm not trying to say this isn't very interesting stuff, obviously it is and further down the line no doubt it will yield important many important discoveries and potentially exciting technologies. But right now, there's really no need to panic about it... really... :rolleyes:
 
No I'm not scared of it for myself, my kid and most certainly grandkid (if I have one, but my kid is a toddler so that's far down the line). I expect to see this kind of technology in use by 2050 though. Which will easily be in my lifetime unless I croak before 60.
 
This is scary as they are working on and getting close to actually being able to monitor and control neural activity.


Hmm, I thought 'they' already had this technology...?

Hard to really derive much from those abstracts but most neuroscience of this nature isn't using brains within bodies. It's cultured or cloned neurons for the most part because science has ethical standards that forbid experimentation on people.
 
Hmm, I thought 'they' already had this technology...?

Hard to really derive much from those abstracts but most neuroscience of this nature isn't using brains within bodies. It's cultured or cloned neurons for the most part because science has ethical standards that forbid experimentation on people.

No, at least from my experience and humble research "they" can not excite or prevent specific neurons or neural strings effectively to control them yet. They can obviously stimulate specific cranial nerves, but this is well known. There is a remote BCI interface that can read and monitor peoples thoughts and its being used right now. Given what this and other research may allow people or groups to do, its scary.

Allot of this work is non evasive and once better luminescent indicators are identified, I see little reason that an ethics board would not approve of work that held established ethical standards. People experiment on people all day every day. Just they need to follow a code.

Psychology its something like this.
NSFW:

Section 8: Research and Publication

8.01 Institutional Approval
When institutional approval is required, psychologists provide accurate information about their research proposals and obtain approval prior to conducting the research. They conduct the research in accordance with the approved research protocol.
8.02 Informed Consent to Research
(a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research; 8.05, Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research; and 8.07, Deception in Research.)
(b) Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments clarify to participants at the outset of the research (1) the experimental nature of the treatment; (2) the services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate; (3) the means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made; (4) available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun; and (5) compensation for or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether reimbursement from the participant or a third-party payor will be sought. (See also Standard 8.02a, Informed Consent to Research.)
8.03 Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research
Psychologists obtain informed consent from research participants prior to recording their voices or images for data collection unless (1) the research consists solely of naturalistic observations in public places, and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm, or (2) the research design includes deception, and consent for the use of the recording is obtained during debriefing. (See also Standard 8.07, Deception in Research.)
8.04 Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants
(a) When psychologists conduct research with clients/patients, students, or subordinates as participants, psychologists take steps to protect the prospective participants from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.
(b) When research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit, the prospective participant is given the choice of equitable alternative activities.
8.05 Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research
Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, or reputation, and confidentiality is protected; or (c) the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants' employability, and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations.
8.06 Offering Inducements for Research Participation
(a) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce participation.
(b) When offering professional services as an inducement for research participation, psychologists clarify the nature of the services, as well as the risks, obligations, and limitations. (See also Standard 6.05, Barter with Clients/Patients.)
8.07 Deception in Research
(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.
(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.
(c) Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their data. (See also Standard 8.08, Debriefing.)
8.08 Debriefing
(a) Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, and they take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that participants may have of which the psychologists are aware.
(b) If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information, psychologists take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.
(c) When psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm.
8.09 Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research
(a) Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.
(b) Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals supervise all procedures involving animals and are responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration of their comfort, health, and humane treatment.
(c) Psychologists ensure that all individuals under their supervision who are using animals have received instruction in research methods and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species being used, to the extent appropriate to their role. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others.)
(d) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of animal subjects.
(e) Psychologists use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation only when an alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value.
(f) Psychologists perform surgical procedures under appropriate anesthesia and follow techniques to avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery.
(g) When it is appropriate that an animal's life be terminated, psychologists proceed rapidly, with an effort to minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures.
8.10 Reporting Research Results
(a) Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements.)
(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.
8.11 Plagiarism
Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.
8.12 Publication Credit
(a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit.)
(b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement.
(c) Except under exceptional circumstances, a student is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student's doctoral dissertation. Faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit.)
8.13 Duplicate Publication of Data
Psychologists do not publish, as original data, data that have been previously published. This does not preclude republishing data when they are accompanied by proper acknowledgment.
8.14 Sharing Research Data for Verification
(a) After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release. This does not preclude psychologists from requiring that such individuals or groups be responsible for costs associated with the provision of such information.
(b) Psychologists who request data from other psychologists to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis may use shared data only for the declared purpose. Requesting psychologists obtain prior written agreement for all other uses of the data.
8.15 Reviewers
Psychologists who review material submitted for presentation, publication, grant, or research proposal review respect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in such information of those who submitted it.

That said unethical exsperimentation on unwilling human victims has happened, is happening and most assuredly will happen in the future.

The big problem with emerging technology like this is its potential for severe abuse by people wanting power over our populations thoughts and behaviors.. for whatever reason. Another big problem is someone has already solved some of the problem of remote touchless neuromonetoring.
 
Last edited:
The scary issue is if the human neural will end up controlling the AI or if the computer will end up controlling the human . That's a pretty polar opposite assessment to take on what will happen and like in life it won't ever be so one-sided. This is very, very likely where we are headed. I want to say its a certainty, but is their ever one of those. I believe Computer Brain Interfaces are going to impact this planet and the human race on a scale never seen. They will change life so profoundly and In so many ways that the metamorphoses will constitute a new time period. It will no longer be 2000 what ever A.D. It will be something like year one Post Link. 1P.L.
 
@neversickanymore
Elon musk is pretty scared of AI, I think I read somewhere that this neural implant is his way of trying to enhance humans instead of creating fully intelligent, self-aware AI.
I suppose his approach to enhance the brain instead of creating neural networks that operate independently from humans is admirable but eventually (barring global warming/asteroids, supervolcanoes, ect.) we will either blend together seamlessly with technology and live in some weird augmented reality that I cannot fathom or we will build a technology that is superior to the human brain that will make it's own decisions and be able to implement the choices it makes in a way that severely impacts our species.
 
... close like we're close to building a colony on Pluto, perhaps.
So when "they/we" start to attempt colonizing other celestial places we may rum into an as yet unknown resistance. We screwed ourselves and others with colonialism; think MFs wont come out and say "Hey... take that shit back where you got it for I blast yo ass inda face!"? Hahaha
We may wanna think about repairing what we have before fuckin around with the unknown again... may run into something that dont take kindly to beads and rum.
Musk is the poster-boy for god knows what.... Maybe a diversion..., IDK.

edit: psyops are a reality. take it for what it's worth. doesnt mean what they say is what it is. its someones reality being fed to all.
hehe
does it take all the "electronics" to control ones mind?
fuck; propaganda has done great for a long ass time.
these mf make me sick with their bs "reality".
love you fam
 
Last edited:
What's interesting is this tech is no longer unbelievable. What would happen if the 99% lit up the 1% with their own tech. Their would be some utterly miserable powerful rich people and we would know all their secrets.
 
But maybe those kind have the technology, already. Which I really do not doubt.

?​
 
Well lets hope then they turn out to be more admirable then their predecessors.

"Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely" I believe its human nature, yes their are relevant people out there that this does not hold true. But as a whole we could be to competitive to grasp that when everyone wins, we all win.

it seems it may be more important to us to fight to be in a higher statouse then to work together for a better existence.
 
That sounds good. maybe let them have their technology and us have the heavens and the stars. One persons treasures might be another persons junk. Those TR-3B's do seem to be a hidden knowledge, though. Just from looking at observations.

It's just that I saw something fly extremely faster than drones ever would. And drones look like flying debris in comparison.
Also, I think the remote mind control may have been worked with for a long time now.
 
Last edited:
Ok I just looked this up.. what do gravity less vehicles have to do with this?

Edit: I think its been worked on since the 60's.. Hell yeah I take the heavens and stars, but i no longer want to be fucked with by this system. That would be perfect. All in on that.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, this is current events, I think all kinds of technology is still out there and has been around for a long time, maybe from ancient knowledge.
Mind control, sure, isn't that what the military is involved alot in . . .
I don't really know how to add sources, however right now I am just speculating then.
 
Militaries are certainly into thought manipulation.. but im a citizen not a soldier at war. Yes I agree this has been going on forever. That does not make it acceptable?

What are you getting at...
Religion, government, media and corporations are all over forms of thought influence.
 
Last edited:



Good stuff on AI and rapid progression of tech.

EDIT: When you combine the fact of an already operative touchless remote BCI with AI forcasts it gets pretty scary.
 
Last edited:
Top