It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Secret DARPA Mind Control Project Is Real: Leaked Document - Narrative Disruptors And Inductors

page: 3
62
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Loved your opinions on this. But you brought to mind one thought... Would this be considered hijacking or hacking? Is inducing thought a form of computer virus, since it makes the brain execute "code" that it normally wouldn't?
edit on 30-7-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)


The human brain is NOT a computer. It doesn't "execute code." It is a mass of cellular tissue. Even without bringing alzheimers and other degenerative diseases into the picture, the body replaces and remanufactures cells at a continuous rates from months to years. "Programming" a person's brain like a computer just is NOT possible due to basic physiology.

Even looking beyond the physiological weaknesses of the allegation, if someone is "programming" an object...be it a computer, a person, whatever....there are a lot of complex "protocols" that are used for redundancy, security, etc... There would be so much variation in how that was designed, built, tested, and deployed. Just as there is in the IT infrastructure today. Think about it.... There are entire colleges, industries, commerce, and careers surrounding these specificities involving a piece of electronics. Can you imagine how complicated that would be to overlay those same dynamics and mesh not just the same philosophies and structures, but further complicate those things by involving human physiology? Electronics work on a concrete binary system. Human biology and cellular signal transmission are far from concrete.




posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
**double post**
edit on 30-7-2013 by CIAGypsy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Loved your opinions on this. But you brought to mind one thought... Would this be considered hijacking or hacking? Is inducing thought a form of computer virus, since it makes the brain execute "code" that it normally wouldn't?
edit on 30-7-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)


That's a good question. TMS and disruption of a section of the brain is shown here in the documentary, "Beautiful Minds" beginning with an interview with the researcher at 2:20:



What Snyder is doing is disrupting a very specific section of the brain for about 10-20 minutes. The depression treatment, at 37 minute sessions, still requires near daily TMS so the effect is temporary or transient. Hijacking, to me, is a less permanent status whereas hacking has some permanence. The question is, however, is if they were able to disrupt the NCN and replace it with another narrative, which narrative would stick after the effects from TMS dissipate? That part, based on what I read, is part of the investigation. The interest in doing such a thing has been around since the Korean and Vietnam wars after film of American POWs admitting to war crimes surfaced.

Like I said, even if the effect were temporary, it's a lot more conscionable than bombarding individuals in a shipping container with Barney and flashing lights, waterboarding, or the other methods of interrogation that have been used in the last 10 or so years. If I were absolutely certain that, if perfected, that they would utilize that technique on actual and serious threats, I'd be tentatively supportive of it if the effect on narrative were temporary. Unfortunately, I'm very personally and poignantly aware that our government has not had a good track record in who they have directed previous attempts of this kind of research upon in the past such like housewives. Go down a dark path and there is always the risk for abuse.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 


But you are totally missing the point. If there is intention, they will someday likely succeed. And perhaps it will be some new technology developed in their studies. Quite frankly I am concerned that my government is playing mad scientist and attempting to develop ways to control peoples thoughts. If this ever does happen, how will we know when the magically pull the switch, since it will already be too late.

Right now the aim of this project is controlling people in other countries. BUT, the aim of the NSA was to collect communications on other countries also. And look where we stand today.

Sure it is fun to fantasize that they are using this technology today. Since it could easily explain why US citizens just don't seem to care that more and more of their liberties are being lost on a daily basis. I am totally perplexed by this, and I wish I could find some simple explanation.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 


I can picture a human brain and body in process, and I really don't see how it could not be a computer. Obviously I am not the only one who feels this way.


"All biological systems, and even entire living organisms, are natural molecular computers. Every one of us is a biomolecular computer, that is, a machine in which all components are molecules "talking" to one another in a logical manner. The hardware and software are complex biological molecules that activate one another to carry out some predetermined chemical tasks. The input is a molecule that undergoes specific, programmed changes, following a specific set of rules (software) and the output of this chemical computation process is another well defined molecule."



Using only biomolecules (such as DNA and enzymes), scientists at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology have developed and constructed an advanced biological transducer, a computing machine capable of manipulating genetic codes, and using the output as new input for subsequent computations.


Advanced Biological Computer Developed


edit on 30-7-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
I wonder how many people in this thread are working for the gov't... trained to debunk? Probably at least two. Phage and Drucilla seem like likely candidates.

/shrug



I wouldn't concern yourself too much with that.

The people that are developing this program have over a dozen specialists from nearly as many scientific specialties, from two universities working on this project. One of them is the Barrow Institute.

There is no one person on this thread capable of parsing this material.

Don't believe it for a second.

I'll be back after I finish my homework. I'm going to have a bit of a field day here on this thread. Maybe more like a field trip.




posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Loved your opinions on this. But you brought to mind one thought... Would this be considered hijacking or hacking? Is inducing thought a form of computer virus, since it makes the brain execute "code" that it normally wouldn't?
edit on 30-7-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)


The human brain is NOT a computer. It doesn't "execute code." It is a mass of cellular tissue. Even without bringing alzheimers and other degenerative diseases into the picture, the body replaces and remanufactures cells at a continuous rates from months to years. "Programming" a person's brain like a computer just is NOT possible due to basic physiology.


While the brain is basically a complex mass of cells that do regenerate, thought is basically the stimulation of specific parts of the brain through chemical-electrical processes. In that sense, the human brain is kind of comparable to the hard drive of a computer for, without those chemical electrical processes, the brain is effectively inert. The access and function of memory and the like can be altered not through the actual change in the neurons but through chemical/electrical processes. Brain chemistry plays a huge role in terms of thought, memory and behavior and brain chemistry is infinitely less static than a mass of cells. Traumatic experience, addiction, and more can literally alter the way a person thinks and behaves through chemical change. Where it differs from a computer most dramatically is that it is constantly changing and modifying itself.
www.nbcnews.com...


Even looking beyond the physiological weaknesses of the allegation, if someone is "programming" an object...be it a computer, a person, whatever....there are a lot of complex "protocols" that are used for redundancy, security, etc... There would be so much variation in how that was designed, built, tested, and deployed. Just as there is in the IT infrastructure today. Think about it.... There are entire colleges, industries, commerce, and careers surrounding these specificities involving a piece of electronics. Can you imagine how complicated that would be to overlay those same dynamics and mesh not just the same philosophies and structures, but further complicate those things by involving human physiology? Electronics work on a concrete binary system. Human biology and cellular signal transmission are far from concrete.


Well that's why they are basically doing concept mapping of the brain using fMRI. Basically, what they do is have the subject think or talk about a very specific subject while undergoing a fMRI to basically map the areas that light up with activity. That's basically what they are showing on page 17 of the document--the specific nodes that get stimulated when the subject is doing "narrative" type of thinking. They've been doing this kind of research for decades and, as technology has improved, their ability to map out where specific types of thoughts or concepts exist in the brain has improved. The ASU research is attempting to do the same thing with a more complex thought process and are testing to see which of these areas are integral to narrative type of thought using the TMS. If they can locate that specific area that is integral for "pulling it all together", then yes, they can disrupt narrative thought for a little while just like Dr. Snyder in the above view disrupting a biased worldview by shutting down a specific part of the brain using TMS in a repeatable fashion.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
While the brain is basically a complex mass of cells that do regenerate, thought is basically the stimulation of specific parts of the brain through chemical-electrical processes. In that sense, the human brain is kind of comparable to the hard drive of a computer for, without those chemical electrical processes, the brain is effectively inert. The access and function of memory and the like can be altered not through the actual change in the neurons but through chemical/electrical processes. Brain chemistry plays a huge role in terms of thought, memory and behavior and brain chemistry is infinitely less static than a mass of cells. Traumatic experience, addiction, and more can literally alter the way a person thinks and behaves through chemical change. Where it differs from a computer most dramatically is that it is constantly changing and modifying itself.
www.nbcnews.com...


Alice,

Have you personally ever tried to make a brain (rat, monkey, human....ANY brain) do something through magnetics or wired/wireless electronic manipulation? If you haven't even tried, then it's no wonder that you are over-simplifying the process. Yes, the brain is a chemical electrical process. But what you and others are suggesting is that it is a simple process to erase memories or feelings and replace them with a different set of complex memories and feelings...covertly I might add....by directing some electromagnetic frequency or signal at the brain. If such a thing were remotely possible...then we could easily change the electro-chemical components that are, say, behind brain tumors or schizophrenia. We do NOT possess that scientific capability. Even these current studies are taking place in a lab with very controlled conditions.

Let me give you another example...this one directly related to my current research. Dreams. We have been attempting to create a brain-computer interface that will "record" an individual's dreams in complete detail. The first hurdle in this project is for a computer to accurately interpret the brain's signals to "redraw" an image that you see in the "minds eye." While we have had some GENERAL success, we are nowhere CLOSE to it being perfect or even USABLE on a commercial level. Basically, I can pull an image out that might have the same general shape of the object or even the right color, but there is no discernible detail. Through pareidolia, I might be able to use critical thinking to ascertain what image you have in your mind...but there is no "video" of your thoughts.

It is the same concept with "programming" the mind. While we are discovering more information every day, there is too much about intertwining structures of the brain, chemical processes, and storage/recall that we still don't know....and that's not even accounting for the myriad of CONFLICTING research that has been done on these topics.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


So are you saying that manipulating ones thoughts is acceptable to you? Controlling ones thoughts removes their individuality and ability to think freely.
Where does controlling thoughts come into this? That is not what the research is about. It is about using narrative (storytelling) as an effective means of persuasion by learning about what the brain does when it is being told a story.

Do you consider persuasion to be mind control? Do you never try to persuade someone that you are right about something? Maybe if you were a better storyteller you would be better at it, obviously some are better than others. This research aims to find out why. Why is it that people can be persuaded to blow themselves up?

This project investigates cognitive activity and narrative in the context of persuasive rhetoric in a multidisciplinary manner that significantly advances the knowledge base of neuroscience, narrative studies, and social and cognitive psychology. A critical goal of the project is to provide a precise understanding of the role narrative plays in encouraging individuals to support or participate in political violence and be subject to extremist recruitment.


edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 

I agree.

It should be noted that the "leaked" document is a proposal which was submitted in response to a request for research proposals. One submits a proposal in order to get a contract. When one submits a proposal one does not say "we think maybe we might be able to try to do this", one says "this is what we will do". When it comes to research, saying and doing are not always the same thing.


But this talk about "mind control" is somewhat misplaced. The research is not about making someone do something. It is about learning how people are convinced, what causes them to decide something they are told is "right". It is about why a really good storyteller can put you into his story and make it feel real (narrative transportation). It is about finding out if a really well told story makes the storyteller more able to persuade the listener to his way of thinking and how that happens.

Understanding narrative transportation is a crucial element of investigating the persuasive power of narrative and its relationship to joining political violence. Existing studies of the phenomenon have indicated that transportation may reduce basic cognitive and elaborativeactivities that underlie resistance to persuasion (Appel & Richter, 2010). Thus, the release of attention to the physical or “real” world also induces a release of cognitive faculties related tocritical review and assessment. In addition, transportation involves strong emotional experiencesthat can facilitate narrative persuasion via positive mood.

Its not like we don't see this quite a bit on ATS. Someone tells a really good story and there are quite a few people who will believe it, with nothing but the storyteller's narrative to support that belief.

So why learn about this sort of thing? As quote in the OP:

Humans are storytelling beings. There is no clearer evidence of this than the struggles of the United States government to convince world populations of its good intentions, and to dissuade key constituencies from the powerful narratives told by violent extremists. In short, itis widely recognized that the U.S. is "losing the battle of the narrative" and thus, consequentially,the "war of ideas".



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


Look closer to home, bruh.

You know that high frequency radio waves are not the same thing as very strong magnetic fields, right?


You bet I do. I was trying to point out that HAARP and MRI's do very different things, in very different ways. What an MRI does (generate an EM field, send radio wave pulses) and how it does it could, in time, be miniaturized and incorporated into consumer electronics.


Probably on the cheap, probably on the sly. I don't personally think it's been nailed yet, but I'd be shocked if no one was trying. I dunno, Phage, what do you think?



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteAlice

Originally posted by Eidolon23
TMS is only useful for observing and mapping brain patterns, not controlling them. To have even the mildest effect on brain activity, you need a big-ass heavy-duty coil strapped flush against your forehead. Oh, except the mapping is very useful in its own right. Reap a wide range of responses, and tune your narratives accordingly.


Ummm, I guess you missed the link that I posted directly from the National Institute of Health that cited the stimulation of savant like abilities by the use of TMS to disrupt a part of the brain.I am 100% that repetitive TMS was also featured in a BBC documentary called "Beautiful Minds" where they actually do it on screen with pretty interest effect.


And perhaps you missed the part where a huge coil strapped to the cranium was required to acheive the kind of results you're referring to. Hardly useful for widespread application.

But for simply taking readings, a much less intrusive mechanism will do.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Well I have been meaning to work on my Faraday cage for some time now, guess nows a good a time as any...

several hundred feet of chain link fence and the system for an electric dog fence should do...

Guess ill be switching to all cat 5 network instead of wi/fi...



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


Probably on the cheap, probably on the sly. I don't personally think it's been nailed yet, but I'd be shocked if no one was trying. I dunno, Phage, what do you think?
A stealthy MRI type magnet in your iPhone? I don't think so. Apart from the power needed, you might notice the paperclips sliding across your desk. There's a reason they make sure you aren't carrying metal when you have an MRI scan.

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Directed EM from a laptop. It's possible, and you'd code the radio signals into the content.




posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 

You seem to be confusing electromagnetic radiation with electromagnetism.
MRIs (and TMS) use magnetism, not electromagnetic radiation (radio).

I don't think the HDD in your laptop would appreciate it.

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 


Slightly fallacious there. I made no claim of expertise but am relying on the research of experts in terms of the usage of transcranial magnetic stimulation to disrupt portions of the brain and alter behavior including the usage of it in the treatment of depression, Dr. Snyder's work inducing what he perceives as "savant like" thinking both shown in the video and on the NIH site, itself. I'm relying on the research of published experts on the subject of TMS and the effects on the brain to form those opinions and not making a claim that I am a neuroscientist.

Here's another one with a huge list of published articles citing that one:
Disruption of Right Prefrontal Cortex by Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Induces Risk-Taking Behavior

Sure looks like mapping functions and disruption of those functions using TMS to me. I'm not arguing that the brain isn't incredibly complex. It's intensely complex but what Snyder et al are basically doing is mapping those areas of the brain that get stimulated and basically temporarily zapping them to alter or induce different behaviors. I even make the statement that from what research I've read through less questionable sources that it's a temporary effect. So, I'm not making the statement that they could 100% reprogram an individual today using TMS alone but remarking on the possibility of what the areas of interest are within the OP document in combination with other activities. A rat can be conditioned without an electronic device attached to its brain to do all sorts of behaviors. I can change an opinion just through discourse. Now couple that with the OP document. That's what I'm saying. Temporarily hijacking a function of the brain along with other methodologies, such as persuasive argument or conditioning, to basically perhaps temporarily change a narrative.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not suggesting in the slightest that TMS basically can upload a new line of thinking into a brain. That's impossible at this time for the reasons that you state but it also wasn't what I was saying in the first place.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Eidolon23
 

You seem to be confusing electromagnetic radiation with electromagnetism.
MRIs (and TMS) use magnetism, not electromagnetic radiation (radio).


I'm not sure I am. The radiation creates the magnetic field. You'd work on the sensitivity of the sensory apparatus, thereby scaling back the strength you'd need on the magnet.


I don't think the HDD in your laptop would appreciate it.


So it gets shielded.

edit on 30-7-2013 by Eidolon23 because: And size, of course. You could cale back the size. Probably never small enough for a handheld device, but that's not where people go to engage in narrative, anyway.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


The radiation creates the magnetic field.
Not so much. A magnetic field is a component of electromagnetic radiation, you can't really separate them or say that radiation "creates" a magnetic field.


You'd work on the sensitivity of the sensory apparatus, thereby scaling back the strength you'd need on the magnet.
What "sensory apparatus"?


So it gets shielded.
And now your laptop weighs 20 pounds.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Sure looks like mapping functions and disruption of those functions using TMS to me.
That's an interesting study.

Indeed, seven of nine subjects who received right DLPFC rTMS ultimately performed among the subjects more prone to risk-taking, whereas most of those who received left DLPFC rTMS ended up in the group of subjects who were less inclined toward risk-taking.

www.jneurosci.org...

22% percent of the subjects did not display increased risk taking after stimulation of the right prefrontal cortex. I'm not sure a sample of 9 subjects really demonstrates a lot but still, it's interesting that there may be some cognitive effects.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join