At What Point is Manipulation Mind-Control?

[INRM]

callaway

He's referring to the popular idea of sociopaths as the ultimate kind of businesspeople. They're better than everyone else at using and abusing others; that's their competitive advantage. Sociopaths (the most powerful and influential, anyway) wouldn't choose the mind control solution because that means giving up their competitive advantage. Therefore the government would need to force it on them.

Effectively yes


MikeSun5

Synthetic telepathy is a combination of mind-reading, and mind-signalling. It could be used as a mind-control device, or at least the knowledge acquired could form the basis for mind-control.

After all, the first step to learning how to really effectively control a mind is to learn how to read it.


The Man

Perhaps, but then why not empower the government to force everyone to give up any kind of competitive advantage?

Because that would give the government totalitarian power over all of us...

 

[The Man]

The Man



Because that would give the government totalitarian power over all of us...

What? How is that “totalitarian power”. Removing competitive advantages would just level the playing field and since it included everyone it would include those in government. Is this totalitarian “government” of which you speak populated by robots, computers, automatons or other autonomous constructs (rather than people) of some kind?


Let’s reverse the perspective, would you want “all of us” to have “totalitarian power” over “the government”? Then “all of us” just become that “totalitarian power” of the “government”. So some mid-ground would seem desirable and that includes, influence, manipulation and to some degree (both overt and covert) mind control (from both perspectives).

 

[Joey McGee]

All you need is love.

War is over, if you want it.

Really can we figure this stuff out with just some common decency and common sense? I think that we are moving towards some global cohesion that can overcome the need for any totalitarian takeovers.

 

[The Man]

All you need is love.

War is over, if you want it.

Really can we figure this stuff out with just some common decency and common sense? I think that we are moving towards some global cohesion that can overcome the need for any totalitarian takeovers.

Well that's the rub of it Joey McGee, totalitarianism did have its utility (along with its draw backs) some centuries ago. Then, it was the most effective and efficient means of cutting across schisms and unifying ("The land from here to the sea shall be yours if you enforce the Kings will"). More recently it has just become basically entirely counter productive. With the advent of our modern informational age, that has become the route to the global cohesion of which you speak. Barring some global calamity (like a major solar storm) knocking us back into the stone age, it would be extremely difficult to put that genie back in its bottle. As I have said before, I think the general safeguards are already in place, informed consent for a voluntary procedure and a preponderance of compelling evidence, due process and justification for one compulsory.

ETA:



goto 4:00

 

[The Man]

After all, the first step to learning how to really effectively control a mind is to learn how to read it.

Perhaps in a very general sense in that knowing where certain things, concepts, sensory inputs, ideas and inclinations get processed or controlled and thus can be influenced, can be helpful. Heck I doubt any of us can really effectively read our own minds as we are not some singular construct but a conglomeration of often conflicting impulses and chemicals (that control the transfer of such impulses). So getting bogged down in the minutia of actually reading your mind becomes counter productive, I don't care why you might like blondes or sports cars (from the not necessary you example before) but just knowing that you do becomes something I can use to influence you. It is your mind and it is difficult even for you to interpret, as it is for anyone, that's a quagmire I don't want to get into to control you. For the type of invasive control you are considering I specifically want to bypass all that rigmarole and whatever inbuilt controls you might have, otherwise I'm just influencing you as I could do externally (without having to read your mind). For the type of mind control you seem to be envisioning I just want to 'write' your mind not read it. Your actions will demonstrate the effectiveness without me wasting resources in trying to do something we all find difficult, just reading our own minds. With such control you probably won't know why you're doing it at the time, but that's ok for a lot of things you may not know why your doing them on your own. Although you may try to rationalize them after the fact. Which you probably still will do after the controlled event.

A signature of one of the members of the forum, Apathia

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown

It is specifically that aspect that I want to tap, the irrational. Get those neurotransmitter juices flowing (like Serotonin, gets you feeling good and trusting) so you open paths to what you would not normally do on your own, then let you rationalize it any way you want after the fact. Drugs like MDMA (ecstasy) and Serotonin reuptake inhibitors act to increase levels of serotonin. No mind reading, just some chemistry and neurobiology needed there.

 

[Joey McGee]

Well that's the rub of it Joey McGee, totalitarianism did have its utility (along with its draw backs) some centuries ago. Then, it was the most effective and efficient means of cutting across schisms and unifying ("The land from here to the sea shall be yours if you enforce the Kings will"). More recently it has just become basically entirely counter productive. With the advent of our modern informational age, that has become the route to the global cohesion of which you speak. Barring some global calamity (like a major solar storm) knocking us back into the stone age, it would be extremely difficult to put that genie back in its bottle. As I have said before, I think the general safeguards are already in place, informed consent for a voluntary procedure and a preponderance of compelling evidence, due process and justification for one compulsory.

ETA:



goto 4:00

Yes that was exactly what I was thinking and such a cool example!

A signature of one of the members of the forum, Apathia



It is specifically that aspect that I want to tap, the irrational. Get those neurotransmitter juices flowing (like Serotonin, gets you feeling good and trusting) so you open paths to what you would not normally do on your own, then let you rationalize it any way you want after the fact. Drugs like MDMA (ecstasy) and Serotonin reuptake inhibitors act to increase levels of serotonin. No mind reading, just some chemistry and neurobiology needed there.

I would also add that dopamine increases our pattern recognition, if you cause dopamine levels to rise, people see more patterns. People see more patterns on in random noise pictures when they are about to jump out of an airplane than when they do on the ground (according to Shermer in this awesome talk on The Believing Brain) Interestingly this works much better on skeptics, believers are probably already in the maximum believing state all the time

So if you wanted to influence someone to see something that really wasn't there, getting them into a heightened state could help do it. We see this with cults and totalitarian governments etc. This makes sense evolutionarily, in a heightened state that's your fight or flight, following any pattern that might pop out at you could help with survival, you're running from an enemy and you think you see a cave over there, so you just imagine you did and start running to it, while if you were relaxed you wouldn't think that or see that.

 

[INRM]

The Man

What? How is that “totalitarian power”. Removing competitive advantages would just level the playing field and since it included everyone it would include those in government. Is this totalitarian “government” of which you speak populated by robots, computers, automatons or other autonomous constructs (rather than people) of some kind?

And you're telling me the government would give up it's competitive advantages? Most likely they'd force us to give up our advantages then keep theirs.

Perhaps in a very general sense in that knowing where certain things, concepts, sensory inputs, ideas and inclinations get processed or controlled and thus can be influenced, can be helpful.

Not in the general concept, in the absolute concept if you have sufficiently accurate knowledge of a person's brain activity.

Heck I doubt any of us can really effectively read our own minds as we are not some singular construct but a conglomeration of often conflicting impulses and chemicals (that control the transfer of such impulses).

Regardless, if you can monitor and interpret the activity, you can read a mind.

 

[The Man]

The Man

And you're telling me the government would give up it's competitive advantages?

If said government is comprised of people they would be forced to do so as would everyone else.

Most likely they'd force us to give up our advantages then keep theirs.

So this government of which you speak is populated by robots, computers, automatons or other autonomous constructs (rather than people) of some kind?

So to reverse the perspective again, would you rather have it where just the “government would give up it's competitive advantages” and everyone else “then keep theirs”?

Not in the general concept, in the absolute concept if you have sufficiently accurate knowledge of a person's brain activity.

“sufficiently accurate knowledge of a person's brain activity”? How do we do that without querying them about how they feel or what some particular combination of impulses means to them? Without that it is only the general concepts that can be applied. Even with that, just the general concept may be more reliable as again people have difficulty just interpreting their own minds.

Regardless, if you can monitor and interpret the activity, you can read a mind.

Nope not regardless, as anyone else’s specific interpretations are basically meaningless as compared to those of the person themselves. So it is still primarily based on how they interpret those impulses or combinations of impulses.

Now people can learn to control neural impulses to activate electrical devices or say move a cursor and even send a radio signal. We can even learn that some certain stimulation from an electronic device, even activated by that radio signal, is intended to represent some kind of input, but that is not reading peoples minds. It is just a reflection of the mind's abilities to learn, control and respond.

 

[INRM]

The Man

If said government is comprised of people they would be forced to do so as would everyone else.

Yes, but those people have positions of power, and positions of secrecy, and they're not going to want to give up that power. Power has a way of protecting itself

So this government of which you speak is populated by robots, computers, automatons or other autonomous constructs (rather than people) of some kind?

See above

 

[The Man]

The Man



Yes, but those people have positions of power, and positions of secrecy, and they're not going to want to give up that power. Power has a way of protecting itself

“those people”? So they are still just people.

Who cares what “they're not going to want to give up”, hence the “force everyone to give up any kind of competitive advantage” question before.

“Power has a way of protecting itself” it’s also got plenty of ways of destroying itself. People also have many ways of both protecting and destroying themselves.

See above

I have and you seem to isolate “those people” from just people in general and “Power” as some entity unto and protecting “itself”, rather than just an attribute of some people or positions, even more then you had before on this thread.

However, you still seem to be trying to avoid the other questions as to would you rather see “those people” in their position of, even ‘secret’, power to be under some type of mind control from “all of us”.

 

[INRM]

The Man

Inequality is inevitable, the objective of a society should be to reduce or minimize it's extent.

 

[INRM]

MikeSun5

I'm surprised I didn't catch this earlier, but if the US Army is researching this; this would likely be for use on the battlefield by soldiers, right?

 

[MikeSun5]

I'm surprised I didn't catch this earlier, but if the US Army is researching this; this would likely be for use on the battlefield by soldiers, right?

Most definitely. The point of "synthetic telepathy" is really a method of encrypting classified data so it can be sent from soldier A to soldier B without being deciphered. From what I gathered, the finished product would be able to get actual information from some sort of an MRI-like scan. The parts of the brain that are lit up would be fed into some futuristic computer that would tell you what that brain was thinking at the time of the scan.

Sounds awesome, but I think I see where you're getting uncomfortable about it... the implications of interrogation, maybe? This technology is non-invasive, so interrogating a bad guy with a brain-scan helmet would likely be way more acceptable than waterboarding.

 

[INRM]

MikeSun5

Well, it could be used from the standpoint of interrogation; the data gathered could provide the basis for mind-control technology additionally; furthermore, soldiers cannot say no to orders.

 

[MikeSun5]

...soldiers cannot say no to orders.

Sounds like mind control to me...

 

[INRM]

MikeSun5

Well, they can physically say no to the implant, but they'd get court-martialled for disobeying orders.

 

[The Man]

Sorry but I’ve been on vacation for a while.

The Man

Inequality is inevitable, the objective of a society should be to reduce or minimize it's extent.

So does that mean you would be in favor of some forced mind control procedure if it reduced or minimized the extent of inequality?


In a totalitarian system aren’t most people equally subjugated? So does that not reduce or minimize the extent of inequality?

How are you objectively gauging equality?

 

[The Man]

Most definitely. The point of "synthetic telepathy" is really a method of encrypting classified data so it can be sent from soldier A to soldier B without being deciphered. From what I gathered, the finished product would be able to get actual information from some sort of an MRI-like scan. The parts of the brain that are lit up would be fed into some futuristic computer that would tell you what that brain was thinking at the time of the scan.

Sounds awesome, but I think I see where you're getting uncomfortable about it... the implications of interrogation, maybe? This technology is non-invasive, so interrogating a bad guy with a brain-scan helmet would likely be way more acceptable than waterboarding.

No, not really
From the article you linked…

The brain-computer interface would use a noninvasive brain imaging technology like electroencephalography to let people communicate thoughts to each other. For example, a soldier would “think” a message to be transmitted and a computer-based speech recognition system would decode the EEG signals. The decoded thoughts, in essence translated brain waves, are transmitted using a system that points in the direction of the intended target.
“Such a system would require extensive training for anyone using it to send and receive messages,” D’Zmura says. “Initially, communication would be based on a limited set of words or phrases that are recognized by the system; it would involve more complex language and speech as the technology is developed further.”

Some more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface#Artificial_telepathy

It is no more mind reading than talking is (which one also has to learn). It is just a system of communication that involves a brain computer interface and my hands typing this post from my brain into a computer is a similar (though more physiologically cumbersome) interface.

Much like I can train my brain to write words on a paper or screen and read them in order to communicate I can also be trained to basically write using such a direct brain computer interface as envisioned as well as read the impulses it provides me. Again it is no more mind reading than any other form of learned communication it just minimizes the physiological requirements of such communication.

 

[MikeSun5]

No, not really
From the article you linked…

Uh, yes... I don't see how my layman's explanation was any different...

I guess maybe I confused MRI scan with EEG scan? Simple mistake, I think. I'm not a doctor.

It is no more mind reading than talking is (which one also has to learn).

Exactly who are you arguing this point against?

 

[Jeff Corey]

... The parts of the brain that are lit up would be fed into some futuristic computer that would tell you what that brain was thinking at the time of the scan...

Some futuristic computer? Even Star trek with FTL, transporters, holodecks, alien interfertility and Vulcan mind melds stretch the suspension of disbelief less that that. You'd be better off speculating about detecting subvocal speech by monitoring the larynx.