The ethics of mind control

Wasn't quite sure where to put this, mods please move if necessary.

This will be a multi-part OP, so please bear with me and hold off on responding until I have all parts up.

Having recently watched the movie Trancendence [1] and run across a few interesting bits while researching for one of The GUT's wonderful threads[2]͵ I thought this topic could use a thread of it's own.

The movie is about a fusion of human intelligence and computational ability.

The promises offered by the advanced intelligence and the technologies it was able to develop included cures for incurable disease and congenital conditions for which no known treatment or remedy are currently available. It would also be able to completely reverse all environmental damages caused by industrial pollution.

Without dropping anything too spoilerish, there is a scene in the movie wherein a human has been healed and 'enhanced' by the cybernetic intelligence and a bit later, the person's will is supplanted by the cybernetic one so that the person is, in effect, a drone.

This is the point in which one has to decided if the cybernetic intelligence is benevolent or menacing.

It also opens up debate on whether or not such technology should even be used if developed.

What is "mind control?"

In summary, mind control must alter the patient’s behavior in an observable way without the subject’s consent and must be enacted for that purpose.

[3]

The above referenced paper adds an additional caveat in that it specifies direct brain stimulation, which is where the skull is opened and the naked brain is stimulated.

This does not take in to consideration the possibility of remote methods of acheiving the same effect. In other words by beaming frequencies at a person or persons for the intentional control of their response.

Is this type of tech even in existence?

Part I: EMR Technology at Sandia National Laboratories

SANDIA LAB NEWS (Sandia National Laboratories, 2005):

System Uses Beam of Electromagnetic Energy to Heat Human Target2

Active Denial Technology (ADT) provides an effective nonlethal active response mechanism to disperse, disturb, distract, and establish the intent of an intruder.

[4]

Ok, we've known about the effect that is described as the sensation of burning of the skin but this is the first time I have seen any kind of reference to beng able to "establish the intent of an intruder."

Interesting.

We were able to show that we could influence the behavior of animals. We could put them into stupors, put them into REM [dream] time. I wrote up the protocols for how to do a human experiment based on my being the guinea pig.

[4]

Keep in mind, this is referring to electromagnetic waves beng applied at various frequencies to affect the behaviors of animals.

But what about people?

Anyway, it turned out that I didn’t notice anything when my brain waves were being entrained.

SEMINAR PARTICIPANT: “Entrained”?

BYRD: That we can make the person’s brain waves march in step with this external signal, not only in terms of frequency, but in phase.

This is a whole other topic.

I later, in my own basement, came up with a device that would entrain a person’s brain waves in such a way that it caused calcium ions to release from their binding sites in the brain. The interesting effect of that is that calcium ions control the opioid compounds in the brain, so you feel a little high for a few minutes until they turn this thing off. That wasn’t the purpose of the weapon!

After some research into various means, I settled on one effect, which was, we could de-granulate the Mast cells in the brain that store histamines. And it instantly gives somebody [a feeling like the] flu. And they don’t want to fight. It’s an effective way of controlling people at a distance.

With the animals, we did all kinds of things. And I showed that with certain frequencies, I could selectively influence what directions rats would move in a box.

[4]

Now radio controlling rats is one thing, but people?

This particular case is interesting, and a little bit different than most cases of weapons development, because we weren’t looking at whether or not the enemy had such a technique.

We assumed this was unique enough until we found out that the Soviets had already done it the 1950s. [laughs] They had a thing with tubes, instead of transistors or solid-state devices, that they used in the Korean War for brain washing. It was that device that could actually put rabbits in a stupor and put cats into REM time.

A POW that was interviewed reported that he was given questions and answers to them under the influence of the device (Byrd, 2000b). Later, when the Red Cross arrived and asked questions, he responded with the answers he was programmed with.

[4]

It would seem that humans are indeed susceptible to such control.

And now for the entire reason for the post:

Is this an ethical technique?

[4]

Do those in authority have moral standing to intentionally alter behavior of others without consent or even awareness?

The authoritarian element was dropped because the authors saw no reason to exclude individuals acting alone from being capable of committing an act of mind control.

[3]

Wait a second, "individuals acting alone?"

How could this occur?

There are groups within the military that most certainly talk about the use of EMR technologies against civilians. However, what is in the open source literature about military use of EMR technologies is almost exclusively found in comments about non-lethal warfare use against the electronics of military communications, control and guidance systems. Technically, it simply a matter of frequency selection. Specific frequencies will be used against physical electronic systems, and other frequencies are known to be psychoactive in the brain. These frequencies are well known and published in scientific literature. A dateless high school geek with help from Radio Shack can get into the game if he wanted to make the senior prom a puking party.

to be continued

continued from jadedANDcynical

This implies that with some time, knowledge and off the shelf tech, just about anyone can become a "controller." This also gives an extra level of removal and plausible deniability where it comes to nefarious operations by our (or any, really) government.

The next question one would ask is, would government use it's own people as test subjects in such experiments?

And Reagan was saying: “Mr. Gorbachev, we’re going to make this Star Wars technology available to everyone. If we shoot at you, you’re going to be able to knock down our missiles. So what’s the problem?”

Gorbachev just simply said: “Mr. Reagan, we do not trust you. And the reason we do not trust you is that the United States is the only country that has ever nuked anyone.”

I hadn’t thought about that. Why should they believe us if we say we’re not going to do it again? Wow! That was really a blow. I can’t believe anything my government says. And I don’t.

INTERVIEWER You don’t?

BYRD: That started with Francis Gary Powers, the U2 incident in 1960. And if President Eisenhower had said, “Yeah, we’ve been flying U2s over the Soviet Union for years, taking pictures. Isn’t that cool?” I’d have thought, “Man, I didn’t know we could do that! That’s really neat.”

Instead: “No, we don’t do that. We’ve never done that.”

And then [laughs] the Soviets say: “We got your guy. And here’s pictures of the crashed plane.”

If the government lies to me about that, they’ll lie to me about anything.

[4]

The above-emphasized sentence can be applied to way too many occurrences to allow any rational person to not see a pattern which is indicative of a prevailing mind set.

Plausible deniability and an extra level of distance:

INTERVIEWER How far did you go with the EMR weapons?

BYRD: The project was canceled after two years. The reasons they gave were poppycock. I was all upset because I thought, hey, here’s something new, unique, and it’s working. Are they just stupid or what?

I got a senator involved. He checked into it. The first few months he came back with: “I can’t find anything. I guess it just died.” A year later he called me into his office and said, “I can’t tell you the details but the project went ‘dark.’”

Typical black-budget behavior. No accountability and no way to provide oversight.

[1] IMBD

[2] Electromagnetism, UFOs, and the Weaponization of Alien Technology

[3] When “altering brain function” becomes “mind control”

[4] EMR Targeting and Moral Responsibility - direct pdf link

Ok, ATS.

Mind Control, ethical or not?

To have ethics or to contemplate ethics, one needs an ethical framework for comparison.

World leaders, politicians and many Police and Judges are not ethical.

You may as well say, the world taken as a whole is not ethical nor does it abide my a code of ethics.

Any development in the area suggested by the OP will never be ethical. Until society has a major reset, ethics are a pipe dream.

P

This should help you make a few more connections upon this very subject.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Ok so let me just take control of your mind for a second..

Ethical or not?

C'mon man is that even a question?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical


"The next question one would ask is, would government use it's own people as test subjects in such experiments? "

Uh well they have already a good number of times with various things. So precedence needless to say is there.

As far as it being "ethical" or not, one would think that would be fairly universally seen as obvious.

Hello there jadedANDcynical.
Where do I start. To say that seeing a title with ethics and mind control inhabiting the same territory was a shock would be an understatement.

I have a difficult time, you see, with the logic of this question, as it seems apparent to me that those who can and would control the minds of others are inherently un-ethical. And that this should be obvious, and that it isn't is of such concern to me I think the sky has to be falling in a location where such a thing would be pondered, at all because it is so inherently illogical at it's base.

Think of it like this: If I can control your mind, I can control you to seem in need of said control, to justify the same. The justification for it turns on itself. This is not science. This is not philosophy, nor art, nor anything at all but bizarre in its asking, for it can only result in what I just described.

Now, to the links: Electronic Criminality and Mind Control

Derrick Robinson, President of Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance (FFCHS) joins James for the hour. FFCHS has been in existence since 2005 addressing the issues of remote electronic assaults and surveillance.

The secret research and deployment of these devices and techniques affects multitudes of people in this country and the world, most of whom are unaware of their existence. FFCHS seeks to raise public awareness on the impact of these technologies, as well as a congressional hearing and investigation to expose and stop the perpetrators of these crimes.


In January, 2011, Derrick Robinson was featured in a program by Canadian TV show host, Richard Syrett for his The Conspiracy Show, was consulted extensively in Jesse Ventura’s 2012 season of Conspiracy Theory for an episode entitled, “Brain Invaders,” interviewed by the Washington Post in 2006, the New York Times in 2008, and appeared on KMIR-TV in Palm Springs, California in November, 2012, for their news story about electronic harassment.

Suffice it to say that this man has the experience, evidently, to know of what he speaks. Remember, if you will, that a man named Aaron Alexis killed twelve people 42 days after he made a documented complaint to law enforcement that he was being electronically harassed by Extremely Low Frequency microwaves. But we will get more into that story further on in my post.

Back to Mr. Robinson:

In January, 2011, Derrick Robinson was featured in a program by Canadian TV show host, Richard Syrett for his The Conspiracy Show, was consulted extensively in Jesse Ventura’s 2012 season of Conspiracy Theory for an episode entitled, “Brain Invaders,” interviewed by the Washington Post in 2006, the New York Times in 2008, and appeared on KMIR-TV in Palm Springs, California in November, 2012, for their news story about electronic harassment.

In 2013 and 2014 he was featured in the Super Soldiers/Mind Control Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada and has spoken on numerous radio talkshow programs around the web, such as George Noory’s Coast to Coast AM, Kerry Cassidy’s Project Camelot: The Legacy of A Nation, and Pinkney to Pinkney.

Sources Robinson has worked with assert that as much as ten-to-twelve percent of the US population may be subject to some form of electronic harassment or surveillance. “There are probably at least millions of people who are victimized because we get calls every single day from all across the country,” Robinson points out, “from every major city, every major locality–a steady stream of people.”

There is a long history of such mind control research and techniques in the United States, dating at least to the CIA’s MKULTRA program begun in the early 1950s. “Basically their aim [has been] to control a human being without the person being aware of their efforts. They use drugs, they use electroshock, they use hypnosis, and ultimately electromagnetic energy. That seemed to be what paid off the most for them.”

This is our government at work, here. This has been ongoing since the 1950s. This is documented in member B. Morrison's thread, in Really Above Top Secret, on a thread about CIA projects since 1950, maybe even before, starting in WWII, an obvious offshoot of Nazi interests.

Robinson remarks on the scientific work of Yale mind control pioneer Jose Delgado. “He started off first with animals. He referred to cats as his electronic toys. And he was able to, just by using a remote radio frequency transmitter, he was able to make cats twirl in circles, to lay down, to roll over, to vocalize–just about anything he wanted them to do.” With additional experimentation, Delgado detected the specific frequencies necessary to to initiate the desired response in primates en route to the overt control of human minds, the findings of which are presented in his book, Physical Control of the Human Mind.

Not only are intelligence agencies at least indirectly involved in electronic harassment and surveillance of innocent individuals, but so too are private corporations.

What we have come to learn is that many of them are brought in to the system with the idea of investment in the technology, satellite technology, accessing certain parts of the spectrum to advertise their products. It’s a selling point for those in corporate industry, because then they’re able to subliminally market their products to an unaware public.

The prevalent demographic of an electronic harassment/surveillance victim is a single woman between the ages of 40 and 50 years old, although single men are also desirable targets. “They tend to choose individuals that are alone and unattached to family and friends,” Robinson observes. “They tend to want someone that they can isolate, and if they can get someone by themselves they can really bring the full bearing of their program upon them.”

The article continues on to say that Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis was in touch with FFCHS through email to obtain the organization's support for his claim of electronic harassment. There is a Washington Post article which is quite illuminating as to this, and to the whole question of electronic harassment on the public at large, in general.

WASHINGTON, September 26, 2013 – The FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office issued a statement yesterday summarizing findings of the investigation into last Monday’s Washington Navy Yard shooting, dismissing as “delusional” writings discovered in Aaron Alexis’ electronic media which said “Ultra low frequency attack is what I’ve been subject to for the last 3 months, and to be perfectly honest that is what has driven me to this.”
Despite decades of documented U.S. government defense research and development into the effects of electromagnetic frequencies on human behavior, the FBI dismissed as “conspiracy theory” the concept that ELF technology has any such applications, suggesting instead that its use was limited to a now obsolete surface-to-submarine communication system.

“ELF technology was a legitimate program for naval sub-tonal submarine communications; however, conspiracy theories exist which misinterpret its application as the weaponization of remote neural frequencies for government monitoring and manipulation of unsuspecting citizens.” – Valarie Parlave, Assistant Director, Washington, D.C. FBI Field Office

Again, here, the usual: applying the tech, forcing subject to action, and then backpedaling in

the press afterwards, saying the tech was abandoned or used for something else more appealing and altruistic, if such a thing exists---altruism, that is.

Derrick Robinson, President of Freedom from Covert Harassment and Surveillance (FFCHS), a victim advocacy group which attests to be “composed of at least 2,500 educated, articulate and intelligent Americans, all of whom recite identical symptoms of satellite and land based microwave and ELF signal weapon attacks” provides Communities at WashingtonTimes.com a written response to yesterday’s FBI statement about the Aaron Alexis investigation and ELF waves.
“There is an abundance of evidence proving the existence that ELF and microwave signal technology and weapons that deliver voice-to-skull transmissions to unwitting victims is wide spread and pervasive, according to government scientific reports,” states Robinson.

According to FFCHS, Derrick Robinson is a former U.S. Navy serviceman assigned to the National Security Agency’s linguistics communications division, who was attacked more than a decade ago for his personal lifestyle choices.
“The signals remotely tap into the central nervous system and not only deliver voice transmissions but also trigger painful body and in particular, groin shocks, involuntary muscular movements and internal burning sensations, among other terrifying conditions,” says Robinson.

The article goes on to describe how Alexis, a Naval aviation veteran, worked on non-avionics aircraft electrical systems. I find this extremely ironic, or something else entirely, perhaps, as it's alreadt been stated that this tech had its roots in naval sub communication: as above so below, anyone? From avionics to submarine communication in the depths of the sea…..

Whomever is in current control of this paradigm, they are exhibiting a cruel and sarcastic bent which plays upon people's lives and minds in a most horrible way, but seen in totality, it gives a picture of a sociopath in control at the helm…..

A 1985 CNN Special Assignment with military affairs specialist Chuck DeCaro investigates radio frequency weapons and electromagnetic mind control, providing insight into behavior technologies still unknown to most Americans nearly 30 years after the program aired.
The CNN special includes a faded 1964 film clip from Córdoba, Spain featuring renowned Yale mind control researcher Dr. José Delgado’s famous experiment on a bull with a receiver implanted in its brain. Delgado demonstrates that he is able to halt the bull’s aggressive charge by remote control.
“Delgado, the scientist, pressed a button on a small radio transmitter in his hand, and the bull braked to a halt. Then he pressed another button on the transmitter and the bull obediently turned to the right and trotted away” wrote the New York Times in 1965.
Delgado, who died in 2011, later demonstrated similar results on monkeys before moving on to experimenting on humans.
During a 2001 Cabinet Magazine interview in with Delgado in Madrid, his wife said, “Do you remember how we thought of (Spanish Prime Minister Francisco) Franco? Imagine being able to turn off the Generalissimo”. Delgado replied “But who could have put the electrodes into the dictator? With electromagnetic radiation we could have controlled the dictator from a distance. We did some experiments at Yale where we influenced the brain from up to 30 meters away.”
The potential applications of electromagnetic energy to control the minds of political leaders and soldiers on the battlefield did not go unnoticed by the Pentagon and Moscow. Could such technology also be developed to program assassins, terrorists, and mass shooters like Aaron Alexis?
In 1975 Don R. Justesen of the Laboratories of Experimental Neuropsychology, Veterans Administration Hospital, Kansas City published “Microwaves and Behavior” in American Psychologist, disclosing that agents with the Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA) “contacted Joseph C. Sharp, former director of research in experimental psychology at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and an electronic engineer, Mark Grove, who began to put together at Walter Reed what is now one of the best equipped laboratories in the United States for studying bio psychological effects of microwave radiations.”

I've pasted a lot of this article, but I've done so because I want to make sure that ATS members and the people who read the site know just how deep and broad this goes. There is a lot of good research backing that up in this article.
I strongly encourage everyone to read the entire article. But I will paste this bit more, just to show the broad scope of the research contained herein:

“Sharp and Grove found that appropriate modulation of microwave energy can result in direct ‘wireless’ and ‘receiver less’ communication of speech…By radiating themselves with these ‘voice modulated’ microwaves, Sharp and Grove were readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among the 9 words. The sounds heard were not unlike those emitted by persons with artificial larynxes…The capability of communicating directly with a human being by ‘receiver less radio’ has obvious potentialities both within and without the clinic.” – Don R. Justice, Department of Veterans Affairs
A webpage about “Voice to Skull” (V2K) weapons featuring a March 2000 diagram called “REMEMBER: THIS WAS DO-ABLE IN 1974!” was removed from a U.S. Army website according to a 2008 Wired report.
Research was also conducted in the early 1980s by Eldon Byrd at the Marine Corps Nonlethal Electromagnetic Weapons project, who suspects that the program “went black”, according to U.S. News and World Report.
“The Mind Has No Firewall”, a 1998 white paper by Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas (USA Ret.) published in the U.S. Army War College Quarterly Parameters opens with a chilling quote attributed to Russian army Major I. Cherished: “It is completely clear that the state which is first to create such weapons will achieve incomparable superiority.”
In 1997 Major Chernishev wrote in the military journal Orienteer that “’psy’ weapons are under development all over the globe” the white paper reports. “’Psycho-terrorism’ could be the next buzzword,” writes LTC Thomas. “We are on the threshold of an era in which these data processors of the human body may be manipulated or debilitated”.
Story continuted: Fifteen years later, where is the state of the art in the global psychotronic arms race?

I guess by now you know my pov, jadedANDcynical. Here is another link to an article referred to in the Washington Post piece, "The Mind Has No Firewall."strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil... It is significant, at least to me, that this was the result of the Strategic Studies Institute, an army endeavor. And, indeed, anyone who has experienced this technology will readily tell you: the mind has no firewall, at all.

As you see, I can go on and on about this, and have many, many links about it, which I'd be happy to provide, but i will rest with this, so far, for I do not want to inundate your thread and wear out my welcome…lol.
regards,
tetra50

It is only ethical for individuals to modify/control their own minds.
yet, if you persuaded someone , in conversation,to do what's good for them, that may be ok.

There is no amount of circular logic that can be given, which would make mind control an ethical process.

It's literally the most direct form of slavery you can put somebody through.

~Tenth

Where to start on the ethics of mind control as there are so many techniques and purposes.

Is it moral for a parent to discipline a child? I think most would say yes and even consider it child neglect if a parent offered no assistance or input to the developing mind.

Is peer pressure moral? Views on this are more diverse than a parent / child relationship but is something I think we have all experienced in one way or another.

Is advertising moral? I expect most people would be happy with a life without adds, just as I expect most people have been influenced at some time to buy something we did not want or need. In terms of the corporation, advertising is business and the culture we live in.

Getting into the darker side, is army training moral? A lot of these training techniques come from well tried and tested mind control programs of the past. The general theme is to break a person so the army can rebuild them their way. Just follow orders and shoot to kill, hopefully you make it back home.

And now for the dark programs, is it moral to take away ones self determination? It sounds like the science of breaking a mind is fairly well established with even the strongest willed people lasting at most a few weeks. Then there are heaps of other harassment, influence and control processes available. If the mind does have weakness should we know about it to better defend and exploit, is there a valid argument for natural selection despite how much pain and suffering it causes. Or is this thinking just self deluded and egotistical as we try and compare ourself to god?

Science has been known to throw away all moral and ethical standards before, not all scientist but some. There claim and motive is usually some greater good. Sure they have found out some interesting things, but at what cost and what path of knowledge it has taken us down? Is our life really better for it or could we have found other solutions using more moral and ethical techniques? Once we do lose our ethics and morals does it continue to self perpetuate leading us towards a less ethical and less moral future?

Personally I draw the line at self determination. If someone of their own free will and choosing does want to participate in a mind control program that is fine. My main issue is how can we be sure it is the individuals self determination and not some mind control, pressure tactic or outright deception influencing this choice.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

We, human beings, prefer to believe that our actions are grounded in our free will. This is the one of the distinctions that we have in defining what it is to be human. In normal circumstances, we define that free will as being the thing that sets us apart from animals in that we can rationally choose which impulses and behaviors to execute and which ones we will not. Another word for it would be autonomy and it is roundly the prized possession of all humanity. Mind control subverts that sense of autonomy or free will.

One of the first layers of grey area that the ethics of mind control would hit would be in terms of consent. What if the individual consents to being subjected to mind control for a perceived gain? Let's say, however, that an individual has a problem that they desire to end but they have been unable to do so. Let's also say that that individual determines that a method of mind control is their only recourse to stop the behavior. Let's suggest that that behavior is smoking. So now we have a smoker who wishes to quit smoking and also decides that mind control is their best and easiest option to be able to quit smoking.

In that case, I would tend to state that this would not be an unethical use as consent would have been obtained presuming that the individual requesting it is doing so of their own free mind. However, it is still not outside of any ethical issue as what they are essentially requesting is a subversion of free will in their responses to a desire--smoking. If the smoker in question is not informed of what precisely will be done, then it could pose additional problems for the smoker. Full understanding of what will be done and what the outcome will be (outside of the cessation of smoking) when confronted with that impulse to smoke must be had. Without this full and clear understanding of the mechanisms that will be utilized after the mind control has been done and consent for each one must be had for each would pose a risk to the concept of autonomy that that individual has. The individual must know and consent to each counter impulse that will be given to correct the disliked behavior.

I think in a case like that, it would be the only time that the ethics of mind control would tend towards the acceptable but I also think that it would have to be incredibly specific and only directed at addictions as other potential areas that one might change could have massive unforeseen consequences later on down the road. For instance, if someone is struggling with chronic depression and they wish to be happy, they can consent all day long to every point of the mind control to correct that undesirable behavior (sadness). However, if feeling sadness is the impulse that is being eliminated then the individual runs extreme risks of being too tolerant of situations where their feelings of sadness would normally motivate them to leave the situation. That kind of target for mind control would be infinitely too broad and unable to avoid hitting the individual's free will/autonomy in multiple situations throughout their life. That is in no way ethical.

As far as who should do it, it should never be an individual acting alone as there are too many inherent risks for potential abuse. Oversight would absolutely be needed and that the individual requesting it would be giving their full and informed consent as well as assuring that the target behavior is not one that will have widespread effect.

Probably the biggest issue of all though is assuring that, even when it is a small target behavior, that those widespread effects do not occur as an unforeseen consequence. Let's say that a trauma victim wishes to forget a traumatic event that had substantial effects on them and they give all of the above consent. Total green light--they want the memory gone. The issue with that is that, in cases of memory suppression, often the individual will still exhibit other forms of memory when triggered by external stimuli outside of just active recall of the event. The end result of memory modification would be someone who has dissociative amnesia where active recall does not occur but one might still be hit with sensations of anxiety, fear, body memories and more in response to that trigger stimuli. To get rid of a single traumatic event, one would have to eliminate all of these areas that basically get activated in response to that trigger stimuli and that starts opening the door to unforeseen consequences. If you dispose of an anxiety stimuli when a person is in the same situation that led to the traumatic event, they will no longer have that knowledge that this circumstance can lead to that traumatic event. That's just a pure no-go.

Overall, I think the subject of mind control is just simply too risky to ever be considered ethical overall--even with the best of intentions like above. We are talking about that fundamental concept of "what does it mean to be human?" and a subversion of one's sense of autonomy. That is a very critical and foundational belief for people and the feelings of a loss of that sense of autonomy can create distress even in a natural situation such as the abusive tyrant coming to tears and sobbing for their loss of self control if that distress is not a pure manipulation. People generally don't like feeling like they are out of control (except maybe in bed and a few other circumstances where an individual desires to just "cut loose" lol).

The road to hell is frequently paved with good intentions and the article about DBS as mind control shows that. They are hinging the consent criterion and if the patient consents as being a negative for a treatment to be considered mind control. I think that is a huge flaw in the paper as, referenced above, the individual must consent to every single outcome of the treatment in detail and be fully understanding of what will occur in response to the stimuli that incurs the behavior previously. The authors of the paper are being extraordinarily short sighted and using their base of individuals discussing their being victims of mind control is not necessarily good idea as provides too narrow of a scope of consent. The paper does touch on the concept of unforeseen consequences but uses a serendipitous outcome (augmented memory). What of the negatives because negatives do exist?

To answer your other question about whether it can be done by an individual, based on my experience, yes, but that individual is likely going to need other individuals to assist them in their endeavor. What I experienced would likely to be considered mind control or, at least, an attempt at mind control thanks to a neuropsychiatrist whose assistance was obtained by my family (not the government or any larger agency). I've caught a bit of flak here for maintaining that what was done to me was at the behest of my family. That, to me, is interesting as the tendency is for those individuals to disavow anything that I say because I was a victim of targeted mind control. See what happens? You get painted in a damn corner. The seeming intent of what was used on me was to purge traumatic memories. The outcome was horrific. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't feel somehow stripped of my ability to be human and that is the least of the issues.

Wow, some great responses here!

Regards advertising/peer pressure, these are good examples at attempts of more indirect methods and subtle ways of modifying behavior in certain directions. I've found myself, as I am many other have, falling for the pressures applied externally.

Anyone who is or has been a parent will tell you how difficult it is to change behavior in an extremely strong willed child. At best, one can hope to aim them in the right direction as they make their way in life.

When it comes down to self determination, a person could choose a genereic pain killer or sinus medicine rather than the one who's ad they had most recently been exposed to. In a peer pressure setting, one has the option to not give in though that has consequences.

In the type of involuntary control implied in the OP, and in tetra's posts, no such choice is available. Self determnation is obviously overridden and as one poster mentions direct slavery.

WhiteAlice brings up some very good points about unintended consequences in regards to even undergoing such procedures with informed consent being given prior to treatment.

Where we draw certain lines in regards to this subject could very well determine what is considered acceptable.

Thank you all again, I'm gonna be busy reading and thinking for a while now.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Whether we know if or not, we are victims of mind control everyday. The causes are many from marketing campaigns designed to convince you to buy something to you manipulating a situation to get a result to your very own pre-determined genetic preferences. Needless to say, people have whether directly or indirectly attempted to control one another through various methods of mind control from Neuro-lingustic programming, negotiation, guilt tripping, etc. With that said, of course the government has used and experimented with Mind Control, but their are more reasons then one as to why. Other countries are doing the same thing in preparation for psychological warfare, such as acts of terrorism, propaganda films, etc. Your question was, is mind control ethical?

The answer is that it happens everyday and most people are aware of what they are doing. To assume that this is ever going to stop is false. It will continue. To have the ability to control someone or something is inherently programmed in us. That does not make it right, but it makes the quest itself justified. Assume this, we create a robot that is completely autonomous and in every way better then us.

Would it be ethical to control this robot's conscious mind from possibly starting a robot revolution? I agree that the ethics of technological mind control is an extremely scary scenario and really pushes the ethics of the world. Most people immediately go to the negative (or the extreme) of such technology believing that the government is going to kill everyone or make us slaves, but what if it was a benevolent act. An act that allowed you to be completely safe by removing murder, not allowing you to feel over powering stress, helping people avoid drugs, etc. See my points? Just another way of looking at things...