View Full Version : Future neuro-cognitive warfare

Ed Jewett
03-12-2010, 06:21 AM
March 07, 2010

Future neuro-cognitive warfare:

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/files/2010/03/future_soldier.jpgEvery year the US Army holds an annual conference called the "Mad Scientist Future Technology Seminar" that considers blue sky ideas for the future of warfare. Wired's Danger Room discusses (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/armys-%E2%80%98mad-scientists%E2%80%99-study-swarming-ieds-facebook-attacks/) the conference and links to an unclassified pdf (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/03/final-ms10-exsum1.pdf) summary of the meeting which contains this interesting paragraph about 'neuro-cognitive warfare':

In the far term, beyond 2030, developments in neuro-cognitive warfare could have significant impacts. Neuro-cognitive warfare is the mashing of electromagnetic, infrasonic, and light technologies to target human neural and physiological systems. Weaponized capabilities at the tactical level will be focused on degrading the cognitive, physiological, and behavioral characteristics of Soldiers. Its small size and localized effects will make it ideal for employment in urban areas. Such technology could be employed through online immersive environments such as 2d Life or other electronic mediums to surreptitiously impact behavior without the knowledge of the target.

I presume '2d Life' refers to Second Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life), but I could be wrong.
The first part is discussing the conventional development of warfare technology designed to target the nervous system, which is a long-established military tradition that has included weapons such as the rock, the poison-tipped arrow, the nerve gas shell and a new generation of hush-hush electromagnetic weapons.
The second part is a little more interesting, however, it implies that a certain form of stimulation embeddable in a popular game or internet service (I think they're too shy too to say porn) might reduce cognitive performance by only a fraction, but when considered over a whole army, it could make a difference to the overall fighting force.
The scenario is a little bit science fiction (Snow Crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash) anyone?) but is an intriguing possibility given that only a slight change would be needed in an individual to justify its effect if it could be distributed over a wide enough population.
For example, many priming studies have shown it is possible to influence behaviour just by exposing people to certain concepts.
In one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765481) of my favourite studies, exposing people to ideas about elderly people slowed their walking speed, while a more recent experiment (http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco. found this effect could change action sequences as well.

Link (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/armys-%E2%80%98mad-scientists%E2%80%99-study-swarming-ieds-facebook-attacks/) to Danger Room coverage of 'Mad Scientist Seminar'.
pdf (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/03/final-ms10-exsum1.pdf) of unclassified military summary.

—Vaughan (http://tinyurl.com/6udmu).

Posted at March 7, 2010 08:00 AM


David Guyatt
03-12-2010, 10:54 AM
Ed, have you done any research on bio-cyber robotic warfare that was very briefly discussed in a JFK thread recently? From the tiny glimpses I have had - and probably more intuition than anything else - I feel this is a very important subject. Especially if it is combined with electromagnetic-neural mind aspects.

A military mind-controlled robocop would be the Pentagon's wet dream - and I wonder just how feasible it is?

Jan Klimkowski
03-12-2010, 05:40 PM
Weaponized capabilities at the tactical level will be focused on degrading the cognitive, physiological, and behavioral characteristics of Soldiers. Its small size and localized effects will make it ideal for employment in urban areas.

They've already tried that. :bebored:

For many Americans, the first time they heard the word PSYOP was in conjunction with the final stages of Operation Just Cause. They watched on television as a group of PSYOP soldiers played deafening rock music, 24 hours a day, over loudspeakers that ringed the Vatican Embassy compound where General Noriega had taken refuge. The siege continued until General Manuel Noriega couldn't take it anymore and surrendered.


I believe it was Iron Maiden (but I may be wrong). :thrasher:

Ed Jewett
03-12-2010, 11:01 PM
Ed, have you done any research on bio-cyber robotic warfare that was very briefly discussed in a JFK thread recently? From the tiny glimpses I have had - and probably more intuition than anything else - I feel this is a very important subject. Especially if it is combined with electromagnetic-neural mind aspects.

A military mind-controlled robocop would be the Pentagon's wet dream - and I wonder just how feasible it is?

No, but if you wind me up and feed me [leads, links, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGGSo530bdA tea and oranges, and a wee bit of the dram buidheach], I could.

And would.

I am generally interested in how these _____ are delving into the science of the mind for the purpose of weaponizing it. I have done some preliminary delving for the purpose of empowering individuals to make better use of it for the improvement of life, individually and collectively. I continue to read. I have gathered and posted links, articles and research. Much of the cutting edge stuff is behind closed (and locked) doors.

So send me the link to that JFK thread, define what you mean by the term "bio-cyber" and how you think it applies to robotics and warfare (although that part is pretty obvious), and go from there.

Are you suggesting the external control of humans implanted with leads connected to key and relative parts of the brain? This is what that other fellow was working on with the bull, was it not?

Ed Jewett
03-13-2010, 08:33 AM
Ed, have you done any research on bio-cyber robotic warfare that was very briefly discussed in a JFK thread recently? From the tiny glimpses I have had - and probably more intuition than anything else - I feel this is a very important subject. Especially if it is combined with electromagnetic-neural mind aspects.

A military mind-controlled robocop would be the Pentagon's wet dream - and I wonder just how feasible it is?

Well, I took the phrase "bio-cyber robotic warfare" and tossed it into the Google machine, and it coughed up, #1, the Education Forum page on which the esteemed Dr. Fetzer held forth on the subject. What I read there is consistent with my general awareness of what is being conceived, worked on, and perfected..., timing, availability and functionality being in doubt for obvious reasons.

Indeed, I am aware of the projection if not use of some variation of this being used for in-store marketing purposes; I'd have to look back through all my old blog posts. Here's that scenario: as you walk past the display, the projected voice appears inside your skull telling you "you'd look mahvelous in that inexpensive suit over there made of Super 220 merino wool by Kiton".


The phrase Fetzer used --“stimulation of cortical phenomena from outside the skull at a distance using pulsed beam microwaves” --placed into the google machine, brought me back only to his use of that phrase.

But try Googling that phrase without the quotes.

Here, I'll provide the link: http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=iw#hl=en&source=hp&q=stimulation+of+cortical+phenomena+from+outside+t he+skull+at+a+distance+using+pulsed+beam+microwave s&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=stimulation+of+cortical+phenomena+from+outside+ the+skull+at+a+distance+using+pulsed+beam+microwav es&fp=f8bc9ba0718e9555

See also:

www.fas.org/man/eprint/FutureWarfare.ppt (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CA0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fman%2Feprint%2FFutu reWarfare.ppt&rct=j&q=bio-cyber+robotic+warfare&ei=HUKbS5zyGIP48AbS-J2VDg&usg=AFQjCNG4h6nq3vdzX7-dPwsiRdF6HhrbJg)

Ed Jewett
03-13-2010, 09:23 AM
The Militarization of Neuroscience
April 27, 2007
Hugh Gusterson / Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

The Pentagon is quietly researching new “NeuroWeapons” — mind-machine interfaces, “living robots" controlled via brain implants, soldiers with "cognitive feedback helmets," “brain fingerprinting,” “pulse weapons” that play havoc with enemy soldiers' thought processes, drugs that would enable soldiers to go without sleep for days, to suppress fear, or to repress psychological inhibitions against killing. We need an international debate on the ethics of such weapons research.

http://www.thebulletin.org/columns/ hugh-gusterson/20070410.html

(April 20, 2007) — We've seen this story before: The Pentagon takes an interest in a rapidly changing area of scientific knowledge, and the world is forever changed. And not for the better.

During World War II, the scientific field was atomic physics. Afraid that the Nazis were working on an atomic bomb, the U.S. government mounted its own crash project to get there first. The Manhattan Project was so secret that Congress did not know what it was funding and Vice President Harry S. Truman did not learn about it until FDR's death made him president. In this situation of extreme secrecy, there was almost no ethical or political debate about the Bomb before it was dropped on two cities by a bureaucratic apparatus on autopilot.

Despite J. Robert Oppenheimer's objections, a few Manhattan Project scientists organized a discussion on the implications of the "Gadget" for civilization shortly before the bomb was tested. Another handful issued the Franck Report, advising against dropping the bomb on cities without a prior demonstration and warning of the dangers of an atomic arms race. Neither initiative had any discernible effect.

We ended up in a world where the United States had two incinerated cities on its conscience, and its pursuit of nuclear dominance created a world of nuclear overkill and mutually assured destruction.

This time we have a chance to do better. The science in question now is not physics, but neuroscience, and the question is whether we can control its militarization.

According to Jonathan Moreno's fascinating and frightening new book, Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense (Dana Press 2006), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been funding research in the following areas:

• Mind-machine interfaces ("neural prosthetics") that will enable pilots and soldiers to control high-tech weapons by thought alone.

• "Living robots" whose movements could be controlled via brain implants. This technology has already been tested successfully on "roborats" and could lead to animals remotely directed for mine clearance, or even to remotely controlled soldiers.

• "Cognitive feedback helmets" that allow remote monitoring of soldiers' mental state.

• MRI technologies ("brain fingerprinting") for use in interrogation or airport screening for terrorists. Quite apart from questions about their error rate, such technologies would raise the issue of whether involuntary brain scans violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

• Pulse weapons or other neurodisruptors that play havoc with enemy soldiers' thought processes.

• "Neuroweapons" that use biological agents to excite the release of neurotoxins. (The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention bans the stockpiling of such weapons for offensive purposes, but not "defensive" research into their mechanisms of action.)

• New drugs that would enable soldiers to go without sleep for days, to excise traumatic memories, to suppress fear, or to repress psychological inhibitions against killing.

Moreno's book is important since there has been little discussion about the ethical implications of such research, and the science is at an early enough stage that it might yet be redirected in response to public discussion.

If left on autopilot, however, it's not hard to see where all of this will lead. During the Cold War, misplaced fears of a missile gap and a mind control gap excited an overbuilding of nuclear weapons and unethical LSD experiments on involuntary human subjects.

Similarly, we can anticipate future fears of a "neuroweapons" gap, and these fears will justify a headlong rush into research (quite likely to involve unethical human experiments) that will only stimulate our enemies to follow suit.

The military and scientific leaders chartering neuroweapons research will argue that the United States is a uniquely noble country that can be trusted with such technologies, while other countries (except for a few allies) cannot. They will also argue that these technologies will save lives and that U.S. ingenuity will enable the United States to dominate other countries in a neuroweapons race.

When it is too late to turn back the clock, they will profess amazement that other countries caught up so quickly and that an initiative intended to ensure American dominance instead led to a world where everyone is threatened by chemicalized soldiers and roboterrorists straight out of Blade Runner.

Meanwhile, individual scientists will tell themselves that, if they don't do the research, someone else will. Research funding will be sufficiently dominated by military grant makers that it will cause some scientists to choose between accepting military funding or giving up their chosen field of research. And the very real dual-use potential of these new technologies (the same brain implant can create a robosoldier or rehabilitate a Parkinson's disease sufferer) will allow scientists to tell themselves that they are "really" working on health technologies to improve the human lot, and the funding just happens to come from the Pentagon.

Does it have to be this way? In spite of obvious problems controlling a field of research that is much less capital-intensive and susceptible to international verification regimes than nuclear weapons research, it is possible that a sustained international conversation between neuroscientists, ethicists, and security specialists could avert the dystopian future sketched out above.

Unfortunately, however, Moreno (p.163) quotes Michael Moodie, a former director of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, as saying, "The attitudes of those working in the life sciences contrast sharply with the nuclear community.

Physicists since the beginning of the nuclear age, including Albert Einstein, understood the dangers of atomic power, and the need to participate actively in managing these risks. The life sciences sectors lag in this regard. Many neglect thinking about the potential risks of their work."

Time to start talking!

© Copyright Hugh Gusterson , Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2007

Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

as posted in my blog May 10 2007, 07:54 PM


Ed Jewett
03-13-2010, 09:33 AM
Posted Apr 23 2007, 08:28 PM in my blog, the following is Part Six of a six-part series entitled "Piece of Mind". The link for Part Six is http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&&st=230#


The Present and the Future

“I don't think it is possible to legislate against that which often cannot be detected; and if those who legislate are using these techniques, there is little hope of affecting laws to govern usage. I do know that the first step to initiate change is to generate interest. In this case, that will probably only result from an underground effort.”

Dick Sutphen, The Battle for Your Mind
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewcommen....php?storyid=41 (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewcommentary.php?storyid=41)-- -- -- -- --

“And having justified Bush/Cheney's coup, the media continue to betray American democracy. Media devoted to the public interest would investigate the poor performance by the CIA, the FBI, the FAA and the CDC, so that those agencies might be improved for our protection--but the news teams (just like Congress) haven't bothered to look into it. So, too, in the public interest, should the media report on all the current threats to our security--including those far-rightists targeting abortion clinics and, apparently, conducting bioterrorism; but the telejournalists are unconcerned (just like John Ashcroft). So should the media highlight, not play down, this government's attack on civil liberties--the mass detentions, secret evidence, increased surveillance, suspension of attorney-client privilege, the encouragements to spy, the warnings not to disagree, the censored images, sequestered public papers, unexpected visits from the Secret Service and so on. And so should the media not parrot what the Pentagon says about the current war, because such prettified accounts make us complacent and preserve us in our fatal ignorance of what people really think of us--and why--beyond our borders. And there's much more--about the stunning exploitation of the tragedy, especially by the Republicans; about the links between the Bush and the bin Laden families; about the ongoing shenanigans in Florida--that the media would let the people know, if they were not (like Michael Powell) indifferent to the public interest.

In short, the news divisions of the media cartel appear to work against the public interest--and for their parent companies, their advertisers and the Bush Administration. The situation is completely un-American. It is the purpose of the press to help us run the state, and not the other way around. As citizens of a democracy, we have the right and obligation to be well aware of what is happening, both in "the homeland" and the wider world. Without such knowledge we cannot be both secure and free. We therefore must take steps to liberate the media from oligopoly, so as to make the government our own.’

Mark Crispin Miller, “What’s Wrong With This Picture?”, The Nation,
December 20, 2001, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020107/miller

-- -- -- -- --

German psychiatrist Kurt Lewin became director of the elite-sponsored Tavistock Institute in 1932. In the book "Mind Control World Control" (1997) Jim Keith writes:

"Lewin is credited with much of the original Tavistock research into mass brainwashing applying the results of repeated trauma and torture [of individuals] in mind control to society at large."

"If terror can be induced on a widespread basis into a society, Lewin has stated, then society reverts to a tabula rasa, a blank slate, a situation where control can easily be instituted from an external point."

"Put another way: By the creation of controlled chaos, the populace can be brought to the point where it willingly submits to greater control. Lewin maintained that society must be driven into a state equivalent to an 'early childhood situation.' He termed this societal chaos 'fluidity.'"

(Page 44)Dr. William Sargent, author of "Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing" (1957) noted that "Various types of beliefs can be implanted after brain function has been sufficiently disturbed by ... deliberately induced fear, anger or excitement."

For more: http://blackboxsearch.com/cgi-bin/searchGo...com%20tavistock (http://blackboxsearch.com/cgi-bin/searchGoogle.cgi?hl=en&lr=&q=site:100777.com%20tavistock)

-- -- -- -- --

"You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal...

In God's name, you people are the real thing; we're the illusion."

Howard Beale character in Paddy Chayevski's film "Network."-- -- -- -- --

“A blue-ribbon panel of the Council on Foreign Relations suggested last year that the CIA be freed from some policy constraints on covert operations, such as the use of journalists and clergy as cover. This is alarming. Unlike the typical corporate-funded think tank, filled with pro-Pentagon pundits, the folks at CFR are either running the world or they know who does. For 70 years they've rarely recommended anything that has not become policy. Furthermore, they've thoroughly co-opted the major media …. There have also been official announcements that the CIA is mission-creeping into economic intelligence and computer-age information warfare.”

Journalism And The CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer
by Daniel Brandt, April-June 1997
http://www.freedomofthepress.net/journalis...tywurlitzer.htm (http://www.freedomofthepress.net/journalismandtheciathemightywurlitzer.htm)

US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights
By Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton
December 2006

Excerpts only:

“In the 1950s and 60s the CIA began work to find means for influencing human cognition, emotion and behavior. Through the use of the psychological understanding of the human being as a social animal and the ability to manipulate a subject’s environment through isolation, drugs and hypnosis, US funded scientists have long searched for better means of controlling human behavior. This research has included the use of wireless directed electromagnetic energy under the heading of “Information Warfare” and “Non Lethal Weapons.” New technological capabilities have been developed in black budget projects 1 over the last few decades— including the ability to influence human emotion, disrupt thought, and present excruciating pain through the manipulation of magnetic fields. The US military and intelligence agencies have at their disposal frightful new weapons, weapons that have likely already been covertly used and/or tested on humans, both here and abroad….”

-- snip --

“Freedom of thought or cognitive liberty is the natural human right of each person to be secure in their ability to perceive the world to the best of their ability. To have true cognitive liberty in a world as complex as ours would mean that first we must have access to truthful and unbiased information about the actions of others and the general state of the world. The Center for Cognitive Liberties defines this as “the right of each individual to think independently and autonomously, to use the full spectrum of his or her mind, and to engage in multiple modes of thought.”2 Without accurate representations we cannot make independently informed choices. It is imperative that the human body and mind be considered sacrosanct. To invade a person’s body without their consent is an egregious human rights crime.”

-- snip --

“One particular faction of ambitious men, the former cold warriors and emerging neo-conservatives, were close followers of philosopher Leo Strauss. This elite group included not just generals and industrialists but philosophers, scientists, academics, and politicians have now become the most powerful public-private war organization ever known. Strauss espoused an elitist philosophy that fawned over the characteristics of those who inherited wealth and lived lives of leisure to pursue whatever their interests may be. His ideas have been transformed into a cogent ideology in which the media, religion, and government are used to subdue the masses while the real “nobles” follow their own will without regard to the laws designed to control lesser men. Strauss was likewise fond of secrecy, as a necessity for control, because if the lesser men found out what was being done to them they would no doubt be upset. “The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many.” In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients..9

Leo Strauss, Albert Wohlstetter, and others at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought receive wide credit for promoting the neo-conservative agenda through their students, Paul Wolfowitz, Allan Bloom, and Bloom's student Richard Perle.

Canadian cultural review magazine Adbusters, defines neo-conservatism as, "The belief that Democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression …such nationalism requires an external threat and if one cannot be found it must be manufactured."10

The neo-conservative philosophy emerged as a reaction to the 1960s era of social revolutions. Numerous officials and associates in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidencies were strongly influenced by the neo-conservative philosophy including: John Ashcroft, Charles Fairbanks, Richard Cheney, Kenneth Adelman, Elliot Abrams, William Kristol and Douglas Feith.11

Within the Ford administration there was a split between Cold War traditionalists seeking to minimize confrontations through diplomacy and detente and neo-conservatives advocating stronger confrontations with the Soviet’s "Evil Empire." The latter group became more entrenched when George H.W. Bush became CIA Director. Bush allowed the formation of "Team B" headed by Richard Pipes along with Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Paul Nitze and others….”

-- snip --

“Psychological Warfare, Information War, and mind control may seem to be exotic topics, but the impact of these technologies and techniques is profound. Our minds are being impacted through a longstanding series of programs aimed at manipulating public opinion through intelligence agencies, think tanks, corporate media and a host of non-governmental organizations designed to engender fear, division and uncertainty in the public. [For an analysis on the interlocking of the corporate media, think tanks and government organizations, see Peter Phillips, Bridget Thornton and Lew Brown “The Global Dominance Group and the US Corporate Media” in Censored 2007, Seven Stories Press.]” [For excerpts of that work, see my blog entry at http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...p;showentry=860 (http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&showentry=860) ]

“Media manipulation involving the artificial framing of our collective reality is often a hit or miss proposition, but psychological operations have been carried out in the past, and are being carried out even today, through the practices of “Information Warfare,” directed at enemies abroad and at the American people. [See: Snow, Nancy, Information War, American Propaganda, Free Speech, and Opinion Control Since 9/11, 2004,Seven Stories Press and Chomsky, Noam Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, 2002 Seven Stories Press.]”

-- snip --

“In the late 1950s, a right-wing cadre of men within the new CIA was busy building secret armies, planning assassinations, and generally devising plans for world domination that still play out today. Operation Gladio was one example, well documented and international in scope, in which right-wing members of the US intelligence community created “stay-behind” armies in many of the nations of Europe. Those armies managed to infiltrate the highest levels of politics (most notably in Italy where the term “Gladio” refers to a double edged sword) and have been held responsible for numerous false-flag terrorist acts through the 1980s and 1990s. Terror and propaganda often go hand-in-hand in the extremist elements within our military and intelligence communities.28

-- snip --

“Voice to Skull directed acoustic devices are neuro-electromagnetic non-lethal weapons that can produce sounds within the skull of a human. [ Definition from the Center for Army Lessons Learned, Fort Leavenworth, KS: “Nonlethal weapon which includes (1) a neuro-electromagnetic device which uses microwave transmission of sound into the skull of persons or animals by way of pulse-modulated microwave radiation; and (2) a silent sound device which can transmit sound into the skull of person or animals. NOTE: The sound modulation may be voice or audio subliminal messages. One application of V2K is use as an electronic scarecrow to frighten birds in the vicinity of airports.” http://call.army.mil/products/thesaur/00016275.htm

A similar technology, known as Hypersonic Sound, is used in a similar fashion. According to its inventor, Elwood Norris of American Technology Corporation (ATC), the handheld speaker can focus sound waves directly at a person without anyone else hearing the sound. The technology is being tested by corporations such as McDonald’s and Wal Mart to direct advertisements into a consumer’s head.”

-- snip --

“In 2004, The US Air Force Directorate: Controlled Effects gives a clear picture of objectives: “The Controlled Effects long-term challenge focuses technology developments in three primary areas Measured Global Force Projection looks at the exploitation of electromagnetic and other nonconventional force capabilities against facilities and equipment to achieve strategic, tactical, and lethal and non lethal force projection around the world. Controlled Personnel Effects investigates technologies to make selected adversaries think and act according to our needs. Dominant Remote Control seeks to control, at a distance, an enemy's vehicles, sensors, communications, and information systems and manipulate them for military purposes. The S&T Planning Review panel looked first at extending the applications of advanced military technologies currently under development and then at new, revolutionary technologies for their military significance.

“For the Controlled Personnel Effects capability, the S&T panel explored the potential for targeting individuals with non lethal force, from a militarily useful range, to make selected adversaries think or act according to our needs. Through the application of non-lethal force, it is possible to physically influence or incapacitate personnel. Advanced technologies could enable the war fighter to remotely create physical sensations such as pressure or temperature changes. A current example of this technology is Active Denial, a non-lethal counter-personnel millimeter wave system that creates a skin heating sensation to repel an individual or group of people without harm. By studying and modeling the human brain and nervous system, the ability to mentally influence or confuse personnel is also possible. Through sensory deception, it may be possible to create synthetic images, or holograms, to confuse an individual's visual sense or, in a similar manner, confuse his senses of sound, taste, touch, or smell. Through cognitive engineering, scientists can develop a better understanding of how an individual's cognitive processes (pattern recognition, visual conditioning, and difference detection) affect his decision-making processes. Once understood, scientists could use these cognitive models to predict a person's behavior under a variety of conditions with the potential to affect an adversary's mission accomplishment via a wide range of personnel effects.”124 [ For the complete briefing, see the Air Force Research Lab website at http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun04/DE0401.html .]”

-- snip --

“A prominent neuroscientist, Francis Crick stated in 1994, that “your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” [Michael Shermer, “Astonishing Mind: Francis Crick 1916–2004 recollections on the life of a scientist”.]”

-- snip --

The abundance of neuro-research has led to the development of several products by private business in the name of national security, including brain fingerprinting.

[The official explanation of Brain Fingerprinting from Dr. Lawrence Farwell: “Brain Fingerprinting testing is a scientific technique to determine whether or not specific information is stored in an individual's brain. We do this by measuring brain-wave responses to words, phrases, sounds or pictures presented by a computer. We present details about a crime, training or other types of specific knowledge, mixed in a sequence with other, irrelevant items. We use details that the person being tested would have encountered in the course of committing a crime, but that an innocent person would have no way of knowing. We can tell by the brainwave response if a person recognizes the stimulus or not. If the suspect recognizes the details of the crime, this indicates that he has a record of the crime stored in his brain.” For more research, see the Brain Wave Science site, the official internet identity of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories at http://www.brainwavescience.com/Publications.php .]

-- snip --

John Norseen, a neuroscientist interested in Biofusion, the relationship between humans and computers, says, “If this research pans out you can begin to manipulate what someone is thinking even before they know it.” Norseen says he is agnostic on the moral ramifications of this research. He feels that he is not a “mad” scientist - just a dedicated one. “The ethics don’t concern me,” he says, “but they should concern someone else.” [ See Douglas Pasternak, “John Norseen Reading your mind - and injecting smart thoughts”, US News and World Report, January 3-10, 2000.]

-- snip --

“…human ethics should concern every person who believes in human rights and desires control over their own mind and body. Our brains control our bodies, actions, and thought processes. If the government and the scientists they employ perceive that the human mind as simply a collection of neurons, it then becomes possible to justify the surveillance of the human mind and body for national security purposes.”

-- snip --

“A medical engineer, Eldon Byrd, reported a case that illustrates this point. After working on the Polaris submarine, which carried long-range nuclear weapons, Byrd developed non-lethal weapons with reversible effects. He regarded this as a humanitarian alternative to ‘punching holes in people and having their blood leak out’ in battle. His inventions used magnetic fields at biologically active wave frequencies to affect brain function. Byrd could put animals to sleep at a distance and influence their movements. When the success of his research became evident, suddenly he was pulled off the project and it went "black." His believes the electromagnetic resonance weapons he developed have been used for psychological control of civilians rather than for exigencies in battle. That is, to ensure his participation, he was uninformed about the true nature of the project. Byrd’s case also illustrates how morally tolerable operations may transition to morally intolerable operations, or at least rise above the atrocity line”. [Military and Civilian Perspectives on the Ethics of Intelligence— Report on a Workshop at the Department of Philosophy Claremont Graduate University, September 29, 2000, Jean Maria Arrigo, Ph.D. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy Paper presented to The Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics Springfield, Virginia January 25-26, 2001.]

-- snip --

“For the US Government to unilaterally declare that our country will not comply with international human rights laws, nor uphold the core values of our nation’s foundation is an indication of extremism that supersedes the values and beliefs of the American people. When such extremism exists we need to take seriously the founders’ declaration that, “ to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence 1776)

Please read this very important piece in its entirety at http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/E...aticWeapons.pdf (http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/ElectromegnaticWeapons.pdf).</b>

David Guyatt
03-13-2010, 09:37 AM
Thanks Ed. The concern is, of course, that any weapon developed for use against "enemy soldiers" can just as easily be deployed against domestic citizens. And, I suspect, will be too.

Where do I send the tea, oranges and the wee dram? I have a cyber parcel ready packed....

Ed Jewett
03-13-2010, 09:40 AM
See also this older blog entry from Nov 23 2006, 01:42 AM:

There is an interesting web page at http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/h...wh?OpenDocument (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/bwh?OpenDocument) ...

the International Committee of the Red Cross...

which provides descriptions and links to a wide range of scholarly reports on biological weapons and international efforts to control them. "The centrepiece of this ICRC initiative is an appeal to governments, the scientific community, the military and industry to recognise the risks, the rules and their responsibilities in this domain."

Five of the twenty five articles are in downloadable pdf format.

The one that caught my attention first was this one:

Neurobiology: A case study of the imminent militarization of biology

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/h...helis_Dando.pdf (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/review-859-p553/$File/irrc_859_Whelis_Dando.pdf)

The biological, medical (and legal) communities should face the near certainty that unless active steps are taken to prevent it, biology will become the next major military technology, and that neuroscience — and by implication much of the rest of modern biology — will become highly vulnerable to use or abuse in entirely unintended, but clearly foreseeable, ways.

Here are some excerpts:

"Obviously it is not possible in a single paper to survey all of the areas of biology that might be subject to misuse, so here we focus on the potential for hostile manipulation of the human nervous system. We do this in part because the widespread public concerns over the misuse of microbiology have obscured other dangerous possibilities, but also because there are very clear reasons to have worries about the misuse of neuroscience by the military."

"As Professor Meselson, Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences at Harvard University, has said: “[a] world in which these capabilities are widely employed for hostile purposes would be a world in which the very nature of conflict had radically changed. Therein could lie unprecedented opportunities for violence, coercion, repression or subjugation…” 1

"George Poste ... has referred to the “brain bomb” and noted that such capabilities imply “that you can engineer a series, a complete spectrum of activity from transient immobilization (…) to catastrophic effects which can be acute or chronic.” 14

"... our understanding of the brain and human behaviour is reaching the level at which precise manipulation for beneficial reasons is becoming increasingly feasible. Yet such information might also potentially be used for malign purposes, for example to induce anxiety disorders."

"Much of the recent military interest in chemical agents that affect the brain has focused on incapacitating chemicals. An incapacitating chemical may be defined as an agent “which produces a disabling condition that persists for hours to days after exposure to the agent.” 31 Specifically, the term has come to mean those agents that are highly potent and able to produce their effects by altering the higher regulatory activity of the central nervous system. As a recent NATO technical report on future peace enforcement operations noted, 32 incapacitating chemicals could act on “[t]he central nervous system by calmatives, dissociative agents, equilibrium agents.” We are obviously, therefore, not discussing traditional riot-control agents here."

"The recent search for new non-lethal chemicals has taken place, of course, against a background of very rapid and intense civil research on agents affecting the brain. 38 Yet military interest is already directed towards the next generation of agents. A 2004 US Broad Area Announcement stated the objective as follows: 39

“The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) is soliciting proposals for research, development, integration, and demonstration of next-generation non-lethal weapons (NLW) and capabilities... ”

Amongst efforts requested were:
“Studies/Analyses to address technology-specific legal/treaty/public acceptability issues associated with: (1) extended duration incapacitation (...) and (3) precision long-range engagement of threats...”

In addition to drugs causing calming or unconsciousness, compounds on the horizon with potential as military agents include noradrenaline antagonists such as propranolol to cause selective memory loss, cholecystokinin B agonists to cause panic attacks, and substance P agonists to induce depression. The question thus is not so much when these capabilities will arise — because arise they certainly will — but what purposes will those with such capabilities pursue."


"Of course, military utility will go beyond weapons to performance-enhancing agents for use by one’s own troops. Amphetamines have long been used to extend alertness, and manipulation of the sleep/wake cycle is currently used to enhance the performance of air crews (and probably special forces teams) on long missions. But as a recent National Academies report 40 noted, within a few decades we will have performance enhancement of troops which will almost certainly be produced by the use of diverse pharmaceutical compounds, and will extend to a range of physiological systems well beyond the sleep cycle. Reduction of fear and pain, and increase of aggression, hostility, physical capabilities and alertness could significantly enhance soldier performance, but might markedly increase the frequency of violations of humanitarian law. For example, increasing a person’s aggressiveness and hostility in conflict situations is hardly likely to enhance restraint and respect for legal prohibitions on violence. Given the kinds of operations other than war that are the increasingly common pattern of military engagement, we will also probably see soldiers armed not only with traditional lethal weapons, but also with a range of “non-lethal weapons” — acoustic, electromagnetic and chemical. Among the chemical weapons will be traditional riot control agents such as CS (“tear gas”) and OC (“pepper spray”), as well as various pharmaceutical compounds that cause unconsciousness, paralysis or delirium at very low doses. Whether the traditional laws of war — for instance, protection of civilians and of soldiers “hors de combat” — will withstand these changed circumstances is unsure. 41

Certainly the historical record gives little comfort, as the major military use of “non-lethal” chemical compounds has traditionally been to amplify lethal force, not to replace it. In Vietnam, for instance, the US used approximately 10,000 tons of CS. The purported use was for humanitarian purposes, for situations in which combatants and non-combatants were intermixed, or where extensive property damage would result from attacking the enemy in urban environments. However, a 1973 Army report 42 reviewed after-action reports on the use of CS, and found no record of humanitarian use.

Currently in Iraq, the US is using acoustic beam weapons to flush snipers from cover, who are then killed. 43 And in the previously mentioned example of the Moscow siege, Chechen hostage-takers rendered comatose by the fentanyl derivative were shot dead. 44 It is credible that novel agents would find similar military uses, and that these “non-lethal” agents would often be used to increase the lethality of other weapons, rather than to replace them.

There is also a serious potential for misuse of pharmaceuticals during interrogation. 45 During the Cold War the CIA, for example, sought substances that would change personality and thus induce increased dependence on others. 46 The recent abuses of prisoners under interrogation by US forces in the aftermath of the second Gulf War remind us that even democratic countries with long traditions of support for humanitarian laws may act unlawfully when it appears to be vital to security. Accounts claiming forced medication with psychoactive drugs have come from detainees released from US custody, 47 and detainee medical records have been made available to interrogators. 48

Progress in understanding the biological basis for repression 49 may allow the selective deletion of specific memories, which could not only protect sensitive information from unfriendly interrogation but also protect interrogators from effective oversight.

Torturers in all countries will have a greatly expanded repertoire of capabilities. “Non-lethal” police devices such as electric batons and OC sprays are now widely used for torture, and there is no reason to think that future devices and chemicals will not be similarly used. 50 In the hands of the sophisticated torturer or the interrogator willing to use torture to gain information, chemical agents will offer the ability to induce at will panic, depression, psychosis, delirium and extreme pain — and to offer instant relief as well, or even euphoria.

Even greater might be the danger of such capabilities in the hands of dictators to quell dissent. In addition to expanding the ability of dictatorships to use torture to gain information during interrogations, the possibility may exist of pacifying entire populations through additives to food or water.


"... we see the near-term future (10-20 years) possibly including militaries whose troops will go into action with chemically heightened aggressiveness and resistance to fear, pain and fatigue. Their memories of atrocities committed will be chemically erased in after-action briefings. They will be equipped with a range of weapons, including chemicals that incapacitate their opponents, who may then be executed in cold blood. Civilians will be targeted with incapacitating chemicals when they get in the way, and many will die of overdoses or secondary effects. Civilians in occupied territories will be pacified by chemicals included in food distributions (and civilians at home may also be so pacified). Enemy captives, and civilians suspected of collaboration, will be treated with psychoactive chemicals to extract information, including the use of devastatingly effective chemical torture when necessary. The chemical compounds will be rapidly metabolized and will leave no forensic trace. In this dire future scenario, many fragile democracies will have yielded to totalitarian rule, whose governments repress any dissent with brutal effectiveness, aided by chemical pacification of entire populations, use of incapacitating agents for crowd control and capture of dissident leaders, and use of chemicals for torture and interrogation of dissidents. A worldwide criminal underworld will be using similar technologies to deal with both victims and competitors. Terrorist groups worldwide will be finding frequent use for the force-amplifying effects of chemical agents.

Since the future possibilities become very difficult to discern with any confidence and cannot be defined at this point (unlike the near-term possibilities above, which we can discern with more clarity), we offer a few speculations only to hint at what is likely to be possible in the long term. We can imagine, however, that in the longer term (50 years?), soldiers could become wired for rapid and direct communication with headquarters, and to control powerful military drones by their thoughts. They could be triggered remotely to enter specifically programmed behaviour patterns — evasive, suicidal, berserk, etc. Their memories and convictions would be subject to alteration and erasure.

We would like to hope that this is not the world we shall leave to our children, but we are not particularly sanguine. Human history gives ample grounds for pessimism about our ability to prevent widespread exploitation of the manipulative, hostile and malign possibilities that the emerging technologies will bring within reach."


"We know of no major technology with military utility that has not been vigorously exploited for hostile purposes, and there is no reason to think that the revolution in biology will not be similarly bent to military ends. Of course, anticipating such an eventuality, and dealing effectively with it, are two very different things. We see three major generic strategies for attempting to contain the malign applications of biology...."


Ed Jewett
03-13-2010, 10:15 AM
Thanks Ed. The concern is, of course, that any weapon developed for use against "enemy soldiers" can just as easily be deployed against domestic citizens. And, I suspect, will be too.

Where do I send the tea, oranges and the wee dram? I have a cyber parcel ready packed....

You're welcome. As stated previously, if the technology is "in development", you can be sure that a working prototype is already in the field.

Your concern was the focus in part of that six-part series "Piece of Mind"; it has been a steady focus of mine for some time now, the battle for our minds. See this blog entry as well: http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Unum/index.php?showtopic=7301&st=0 and an entire section of threads on "The techniques used by military, police forces, political leaders, and corporations to influence or disrupt a target audience's value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior": http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Unum/index.php?showforum=160

As for the tea and oranges, and the wee dram, start an account in my name and we'll settle up in good time. I am set for now, with the two 50 ml. nips set aside for savoring at a later hour, raised in salute to our virtual friends here at DPF.

David Guyatt
03-13-2010, 10:23 AM
I've just read the FAS Future Warfare slideshow.

I have to say that the new Frankenstein’s dream of future weapons in their depth and scope are truly frightening.

Under the Bio Revolution heading:

Spider genes in goats allow spider silk spining from goats milk for “Biosteel” 3.5x strength of aramid fibers for armour.

Under the New Sensors heading:

Sensors implanted during Manuf (acturing) / Servicing.

Under “Some Sensor Swarms” heading:

“Smart dust” floats in air currents for up to 2 years.

“Nanotags” placed on everything everywhere.

Identification and status info.

Co-opted insects.

Under “Some Interesting ‘Then Year’ BW possibilities:

Aflatoxin - “natural” parts-per-billion carcinogen.

Binary agents distributed via imported products (vitamins, clothing, food).

Genomicaly (individual/societal) targeted pathogens.

It is far from being a complete list of the abominations in store for us.

PS, account set up.

Ed Jewett
03-14-2010, 12:08 AM
I was just poking through that Google search for the Fetzer phrase that I left hanging out flapping in the breeze, and spent an hour wandering through the first 20 entries or so, and found five related items.



Scroll down about 20% or so and look for the word “gang stalking” and then read on from there… lots of leads… especially this one:

eshcatology said:
February 12, 2007 3:47 PM (http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/08/what-investigative-report-would-you-like-to-see-done240.html#comment-7444)
Like some other individuals who have answered your query, I would like to see an investigation done on:
* Gangstalking/Mobbing
* Harassment via electronic devices
* Experimentation on human subjects using various electronic devices and weaponry

Here are some leads:

Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace
By Dr. Noa Davenport, Ruth Distler Schwartz, Gail Pursell Elliott
Copyright 1999
ISBN 0-9671803-0-9
Civil Society Publishing
P.O. Box 1663
Ames, ... Iowa
USA ..... 50010-1663
http://www.mobbing-usa.com (http://www.mobbing-usa.com/)
Stalking the Soul - Emotional Abuse and the Erosion of Identity By Marie-France Hirigoyen
Helen Marx Books
ISBN 1-885586-53-1
Silent Subliminal Presentation System, US Patent #5,159,703, Oliver Lowery, October 27, 1992. A silent communications system in which non-aural carriers in the very low or very high audio-frequency range, or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude-modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally for inducement into the brain.
Hearing System, US Patent #4,877,027, Wayne Brunkan, October 31, 1989. A method for directly inducing sound into the head of a person, using microwaves in the range of 100 MHz to 10,000 MHz, modulated with a waveform of frequency- modulated bursts.
Psycho-Acoustic Projector, US Patent #3,568,347, Andrew Flanders, February 23, 1971. A system for producing aural psychological disturbances and partial deafness in the enemy during combat situations.
Noise Generator and Transmitter, US Patent #4,034,741, Guy Adams and Jess Carden, Jr, July 12, 1977. An analgesic noise-generator.
Method and System for Altering Consciousness, US Patent #5,123,899, James Gall, June 23, 1992. A system for altering the states of human consciousness involving the use of simultaneous application of multiple stimuli, preferably sounds, having differing frequencies.
Subliminal Message Generator, US Patent #5,270,800, Robert Sweet, December 14, 1993. A combined subliminal and supraliminal message generator for use with a television receiver; permits complete control of subliminal messages and their presentation. Also applicable to cable television and computers.
Superimposing Method and Apparatus Useful for Subliminal Messages, US Patent #5,134,484, Joseph Wilson, July 28, 1992. Method of changing a person's behavior.
US Patent #4,717,343, Alan Densky, January 5, 1988. A method of conditioning a person's unconscious mind in order to effect desired change in the person's behavior, and which does not require the services of a trained therapist.
Auditory Subliminal Message System and Method, US Patent #4,395,600, Rene Lundy and David Tyler, July 26, 1983. An amplitude-controlled subliminal message may be mixed with background music.
Auditory Subliminal Programming System, US Patent #4,777,529, Richard Schultz and Raymond Dolejs, October 11, 1988.
Apparatus for Inducing Frequency Reduction in Brain Wave, US Patent #4,834,70l, Kazumi Masaki, May 30, 1989.
Ultrasonic Speech Translator and Communication System, US Patent #5,539,705, M. A. Akerman, Curtis Ayers, Howard Haynes, July 23, 1996. A wireless communication system, undetectable by radio-frequency methods, for converting audio signals, including human voice, to electronic signals in the ultrasonic frequency range, transmitting the ultrasonic signal by way of acoustic pressure waves across a carrier medium, including gases, liquids and solids, and reconverting the ultrasonic acoustic pressure waves back to the original audio signal. This invention was made with government support under Contract DE-ACO5-840R2l400, awarded by the US Department of Energy to Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Non-Audible Speech Generation Method and Apparatus, US Patent #4,821,326, Norman MacLeod, April 11, 1989.
Apparatus for Electrophysiological Stimulation, US Patent #4,227,516, Bruce Meland and Bernard Gindes, October 14, 1980.
Method and Recording for Producing Sounds and Messages to Achieve Alpha and Theta Brainwave States and Positive Emotional States in Humans, US Patent #5,352,181, Mark Davis, October 4, l994.
Method and Apparatus for Translating the EEG into Music to Induce and Control Various Psychological and Physiological States and to Control a Musical Instrument, US Patent #4,883,067, Knispel et. al., November 28, 1989.
Method of and Apparatus for Inducing Desired States of Consciousness, US Patent #5.356,368, Robert Monroe, October 18, 1994. Improved methods and apparatus for entraining human brain patterns, employing frequency-following-response (FFR) techniques and facilitating attainment of desired states of consciousness.
Method of Inducing Mental. Emotional and Physical States of Consciousness, including Specific Mental Activity, in Human Beings, US Patent #5,213,562, Robert Monroe, May 25, 1993.
Device for the Induction of Specific Brain Wave Patterns, US Patent #4,335,710, John Williamson, June 22, 1982. Brainwave patterns associated with relaxed and meditative states in a subject are gradually induced without deleterious chemical or neurologic side effects.
Method and Apparatus for Repetitively Producing a Noise-like Audible Signal, US Patent #4,191,175, William Nagle, March 4, 1980.
Apparatus for the Treatment of Neuropsychic and Somatic Diseases with Heat, Light, Sound and VHF Electromagnetic Radiation, US Patent #3,773,049, L. Y. Rabichev, V. F. Vasiliev, A. S. Putilin, T. G. Ilina, P. V. Raku and L. P. Kemitsky, November 20, 1973.
Non-Invasive Method and Apparatus for Modulating Brain Signals through an External Magnetic or Electric Field to Reduce Pain, US Patent #4,889,526, Elizabeth Rauscher and William Van Bise, December 26, 1989.
Nervous System Excitation Device, US Patent #3,393,279, Gillis Patrick Flanagan, July 16, 1968. A method of transmitting audio information via a radio frequency signal modulated with the audio info through electrodes placed on the subject's skin, causing the sensation of hearing the audio information in the brain.
Method and System for Simplifying Speech Waveforms, US Patent #3,647,970, G. Patrick Flanagan, March 7, 1972. A complex speech waveform is simplified so that it can be transmitted directly through earth or water as a waveform and understood directly or after amplification.
Means for Aiding Hearing, US Patent #2,995,633, Henry Puharich and Joseph Lawrence, August 8, 1961. Means for converting audible signals to electrical signals and conveying them to viable nerves of the facial system.
Means for Aiding Hearing by Electrical Stimulation of the Facial Nerve System, US Patent #3,170,993, Henry Puharich, February 23, 1965.
Hearing Device, US Patent #4,858,612, Philip Stocklin, August 22, 1989. A method and apparatus for simulation of hearing in mammals by introduction of a plurality of microwaves into the regions of the auditory cortex.
Thank you
from Stockton, CA

#2) See also:


That web site or research archive, if not already known to DPF members, should be of interest: http://ce399.typepad.com/

#3) Here’s a long article on synthetic telepathy at the Federation Against Mind Control Europe’s web site: http://www.fedame.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=587

#4) Then there is this (“Telepathy and the Technology of Mind Control”), which mentions some fellow named Guyatt, which connects back to that old blog entry of mine (gee, I knew of you before I knew of you):

#5) “The State of Unclassified and Commercial Technology Capable of Some Electronic Assault Effects”

by Eleanor White, P. Eng.

On that note, I have to go rassle up some grub for the tribe.

David Guyatt
03-14-2010, 11:36 AM
Thanks muchly ED (and for the plug :smokin:).

These days my thoughts entertain (but are not amused by) the possibility of what we might call "collective messaging" via manipulation of the collective unconscious. Many of the things I read about the bio-cyber robotic warfare concept seem to point towards the possibility of this being a deep black warfare R & D project or projects.

Ed Jewett
03-14-2010, 09:48 PM
David, my studies of the cognitive sciences are incomplete, but they are complete enough to recognize what you postulate as dictatorship and totalitarianism of the worst sort, possibly beyond anything envisioned by Orwell. Quite literally, they would be dictating our attitudes, behaviors and actions subliminally outside our awareness. If they achieve functionality at that level, we are theirs, and/or we have no choice but to dismantle the machinery, and/or strengthen our own minds to be able (if possible) to withstand the onslaught.

I am in league with those who think this particular topic/threat/antidote to be of the highest priority.

David Guyatt
03-15-2010, 11:55 AM
It is an abysmal possibility. So as to be clear Ed, I am hypothesizing the possibility. It is not certain nor is it clear. And I may be entirely wrong to look in this direction. But my thoughts turn to all sorts of matters I have read over the years and a sort of un-clarified fudge of an idea arises. By this I mean that all sorts of elitist power groups over the decades have been - and continue to be - fascinated with the occult. And I wonder why.

Occult realms are the Collective Unconscious by another definition. What is the purpose of occult rituals but to make an impact on the Unconscious? Historically, this usually - or at least often - had the loftiest ideals of inducing greater consciousness, and therefore greater personal knowledge and understanding, to the initiate. But the darker aspects of these arts was directed towards gaining power - which always is accompanied with the trappings of wealth and privilege.

But even when we are not discussing occult matters directly, we can see that nowadays the spychiatrists take the work of Jung, Adler, Freud etc and deeply delve into that in order to weaponize man against himself.

So far as I can see the only way to avoid this possibility is to gain greater consciousness and the only way to achieve this noble goal is to confront one's own personal shadow, as shown by Jung. Because it is the shadow complex that talks each of us into doing the things we would not otherwise do.

There is a very insightful film staring Jason Statham called Revolver that depicts this very cleverly.

Apologies for rambling on a bit, but it is an important topic and one that is very undervalued.

Jan Klimkowski
03-15-2010, 07:46 PM
Because this science is covert, deep black, and often sub-contracted, it is very difficult to get an accurate sense of quite how advanced it is.

My own sense is that the strongest evidence that a breakthrough has been made is when funding for the visible, peer-reviewed, area of science effectively vanishes, and the established foundations, the building blocks of the basic science, are rubbished in MSM or forgotten. Discarded as a historical anomaly.

A classic example of this is research into hypnosis. There was a very strong basic science by the start of WW2. Hypnosis was then weaponized, and used in intelligence operations during that conflict. Much of the visible post-WW2 research was conducted by private individuals, such as therapists, whilst hypnosis itself was reduced to a circus act by MSM.

I have personally interviewed three men who were employed by either the British or American military in the 80s and 90s to use hypnotic techniques in covert ops - both at the operational and debriefing stage - but who were officially described as "psychiatrists". I have no doubt that hypnosis is an incredibly powerful, and much used, tool for achieving certain military or political ends.

Running against this is my judgement that much covert or deep black science is inherently of poor quality or, even, junk. This is precisely because of its secret, constricted nature: lacking peer review, lacking proper clinical trial methodology. Investigations of deep black science suggests that there is usually little or nothing to prevent the "scientists" performing the experiments totally falsifying their results.

In other words, an "MK-ULTRA" research finding may be as close to reality as an Enron or Lehman Bros balance sheet.

When we're dealing with attempts to weaponize the unconscious, often using ancient ritual or occult techniques dragged - kicking and screaming - through a crude scientific perspective, such as behaviourism, or our current understanding of brain function at the neuronal level, then my suspicion is that the experiments will be failures with a huge human cost.

However, some deep black research clearly has been successful.

As a final thought, in my BBC days, I was once allowed to witness some extreme animal experimentation under covert US military funding, performed under the leadership of a genuinely world class scientist. Unlike the haphazard way in which I suspect much deep black science is performed, this was of very high quality in its methodology and execution.

The experiments were based on a particular insight into a potential mechanism dimly visible in, perhaps, half-a-dozen peer reviewed journal papers published over five decades. The first clinical observations, upon which the entire hypothesis being tested was based, were made by a Soviet doctor on the Eastern front as the Red Army was engaged in brutal and bloody battle with the Nazis.

By 1997, that particular area of deep black science was at least 15 years ahead of what was being published in orthodox peer-reviewed medical journals. Possibly more.

I have not yet seen elements of the research, which would have civilian as well as military applications, published in contemporary medical literature.

Which leads to two possible conclusions: the research failed; the research succeeded, and is being kept deep black.

David Guyatt
03-16-2010, 05:41 PM
Yes, I can see that it could prove to be very difficult for Uncle’s trained scientists to perform well in these circumstaces. One of the problems they would face is their own scientific discipline and training, for the prevailing laws of that other Realm are completely different to the governing laws of here and now. Trying to apply one set of laws to an entirely different “other” would be fairly futile I think.

What I had in my mind in the previous posts above can best inadequately demonstrated by linking a number of disparate issues and inviting you gentlemen to join the dots.

Firstly post nos 17 and 18 HERE, (http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=446&page=2&highlight=Owl) HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore) and HERE (http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3395&highlight=John+McMurtry)

I once read a factual book (yes!) on soccer hooliganism, circa 1990 (ish?). Subsequent films have elaborated on the theme of the book which focused on rival gangs of football supporters arranging right royal punch ups after selected games. But what was more interesting still was an occasion when the various team gangs joined forces to travel overseas - I think it was Italy - to support England. It was known in advance that it would "kick off" between the two rival groups of supporters, but the English team had a small posse of young boys, 10, 11 and 12 who acted as a most curious group of stage managers. By this I mean that they sensed the build up of the atmosphere and kept the England mob back from rushing headlong into the Italian supporters until the tension had built up to an agonizing almost unendurable level - where people were literally twitching like unearthed lightening. At the right point the young boys gave the nod for the punch up to begin, thus releasing the hordes against each other. Young children are, of course, usually far more sensitive to atmospheres than most adults.

Interesting phenomena eh.

Ed Jewett
03-17-2010, 07:48 AM
Experiment Allows Scientists to Identify Which of Three Seven Second Video Clips Test Subjects Are Thinking About (http://cryptogon.com/?p=14307)

March 15th, 2010

Thought reading machine?
You definitely wouldn’t know it from reading many of the headlines that have been written about this story, but the answer is no, it’s not a thought reading machine. Eleanor Maguire, one of the researchers, said, “We are not at the point of being able to put people in a scanner and read their thoughts.”
On a more mundane level, I haven’t been able to glean from reports if they are able to train their algorithm on one or more subjects and then use it effectively on other subjects. If that’s the case, the news is more interesting than if identifying the stimuli requires the system to be trained on a per individual basis. This article mentions “similarities” between the scans of different participants.
Thankfully, any Legion of Doom thought reading device remains safely in the maybe-in-twenty-years box for now—along with the personal teleporter and the Mr. Fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Fusion#Mr._Fusion).
Although, even after twenty years, I doubt that the Legion of Doom will have a brain scanner that’s more effective at determining what people are thinking than what’s already available by monitoring activity on Google, Facebook and the myriad other online services that have convinced increasing numbers of people to turn their brains inside out in order to think inside the machine… Oh, wait… *chuckle*

Via: Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/experiment-allows-scientists-to-read-volunteers-thoughts-1920116.html):
For the study, 10 volunteers were shown three short film clips, lasting seven seconds each. They showed different actresses performing three tasks – posting a letter, throwing a coffee cup in a bin, and getting on a bike. The volunteers were then placed in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner and asked to recall each clip in turn. This was repeated many times and the scans were analysed to detect patterns in the brain activity associated with each clip. In the final stage of the experiment the volunteers were returned to the scanner and asked to recall the clips at random. The researchers found they were able to tell which clip they were thinking about from the pattern of their brain activity.
Although patterns in individual volunteers’ brains varied from one another, they showed remarkable similarities in the parts of the hippocampus that were active. The findings are published in Current Biology. “We have documented for the first time that traces of individual rich episodic memories are detectable and distinguishable in the hippocampus. Now that we have shown it is possible to directly access information about individual episodic memories in vivo and noninvasively, this offers new opportunities to examine important properties of episodic memory,” the researchers conclude.

David Guyatt
03-17-2010, 09:25 AM
Interestingly, the BBC World Service ran a short news clip during the sage of Waco that suggested the US government deployed a machine that could read David Koresh's mind. The technology was Soviet in design. From the screen shots of the of the machine operating, various words appeared, blinked and were replaced by others. Quite what this meant I didn't and still don't know. However, I do know that one of the words was "alien". It struck me as very curious at the time.

Soviet mind control technology was brought to the US in the early mid 1990's, as reported in Defense News.

Jan Klimkowski
03-17-2010, 06:56 PM
My emphasis in bold:

For the study, 10 volunteers were shown three short film clips, lasting seven seconds each. They showed different actresses performing three tasks – posting a letter, throwing a coffee cup in a bin, and getting on a bike. The volunteers were then placed in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner and asked to recall each clip in turn. This was repeated many times and the scans were analysed to detect patterns in the brain activity associated with each clip. In the final stage of the experiment the volunteers were returned to the scanner and asked to recall the clips at random. The researchers found they were able to tell which clip they were thinking about from the pattern of their brain activity.
Although patterns in individual volunteers’ brains varied from one another, they showed remarkable similarities in the parts of the hippocampus that were active. The findings are published in Current Biology. “We have documented for the first time that traces of individual rich episodic memories are detectable and distinguishable in the hippocampus. Now that we have shown it is possible to directly access information about individual episodic memories in vivo and noninvasively, this offers new opportunities to examine important properties of episodic memory,” the researchers conclude.

This is the most basic of basic science. In terms of creating an alphabet of brain function, this is the little 'a' of that alphabet, not even the capital 'A'.

Fifteen years ago, I helped make a BBC Science documentary on synaesthesia. A typical synaesthete might see musical notes as colours, as well as hearing them, with each note having its own unique colour shade.

The poet Rimbaud, the painter Kandinsky, and the writers Vladimir and Dmitri Nabokov were all synaesthetes.

Anyway, fifteen years ago, we filmed an experiment where synaesthetes were examined in an fMRI scanner whilst music was played. Areas of both auditory cortex and the colour part (V4) of visual cortex lit up in synaesthetes, whilst V4 did not light up in control non-synaesthetes. This strongly suggests that synaesthetes genuinely see music in colour. It is not delusion or hallucination. Seeing the colour is as real an experience for a synaesthete as hearing the sound would be for all but the deaf.

It is clear, though, that the neural pathways of each synaesthete are as individual as the colours they see. Middle C may be blue for one synaesthete and red for another. However, Middle C will always be the same colour for each synaesthete.

This is all intriguing.

However, at the medical level, this most basic understanding of broad brain function (ie both auditory and V4 visual cortex light up in an fMRI scanner for a synaesthete exposed to certain sounds) does not enable synaesthesia to be programmed by a mad scientist.

Indeed, if a scientiist was allowed uncontrolled access to a dozen children, with no ethical barriers, with the aim of creating synaesthetes, I suspect that scientist would have great difficulty, and any success would be non-repeatable in terms of result.

Medical knowledge of the brain, at the physical, neuronal level, is still incredibly basic.

Ed Jewett
03-17-2010, 08:29 PM
My emphasis in bold:

Medical knowledge of the brain, at the physical, neuronal level, is still incredibly basic.

I agree entirely, though some advances are being made and some "centers" are getting themselves more organized in their pursuit. I try to scan and survey the world to glean these things. I watch at least three or four web sites. I have recently purchased a raft of books on multiple intelligences and their development in children, one on parapsychology and spirituality by a well-known 9/11 researcher, two relatively new ones by Howard Gardner, Ellen Langer's new book "Conterclockwise", and three on psychosomatics and movement. "Our" task is not only to survey and watch what is being said, done, developed and used by the unspeakable gang, but to make every effort in our limited circumstances to understand and develop the antidotes and inject them into the culture.

Of particular note are Howard Gardner's books "Changing Minds" and "Five Minds for the Future".

Further leads from "Mind Hacks", a UK-based pyschiatry blog:

The Culture and Cognition blog (http://www.cognitionandculture.net/) covers the territory where culture and psychology meet, and they've just released their 'reader (http://www.mindhacks.com/)' which has a list of essential books and papers to cover the interface between anthropology and the cognitive sciences.

Many of the articles are available in full online and the list is a fantastic guide to the area.

It includes both popular and academic texts but the list works best as a reference, so bookmark it as I'm sure you'll be returning to it time and again if you're like me and interested in the cross over between culture and psychology.

Link (http://cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=459&Itemid=78) to Cognition and Culture Reader:

Link to to Cognition and Culture home page:


Does power increase hypocrisy? (http://cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=563:does-power-increase-hypocrisy&catid=3:publications&Itemid=3)

News - Publications (http://cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=3:publications&layout=blog&Itemid=3)
09 January 2010

An article entitled "Power Increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in Reasoning, Immorality in Behavior" by Joris Lammers (http://lammers.socialpsychology.org/), Diederik A. Stapel (http://stapel.socialpsychology.org/), and Adam D. Galinsky (http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/bio/galinsky.htm) coming out in Psychological Science (http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0956-7976) and available here (http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/galinsky/Power%20Hypocrisy%20Psych%20Science%20in%20press.p df) illustrates how insights into 'power', a notion central in the standard social sciences, can be gained through a cognitive and experimental approach. Abstract under the fold. Read more... (http://cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=563:does-power-increase-hypocrisy&catid=3:publications&Itemid=3)

The International Cognition and Culture Institute (Institut Jean Nicod and LSE) and the Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program at the University of Pennsylvania organize a virtual seminar Decision Making for a Social World.

Decision Making for a Social World (http://cognitionandculture.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=71:decision-making-for-a-social-world&layout=blog&Itemid=85)

The aim of this seminar is to bring together threads of research in decision making and related areas of psychology that show how deeply our decisions are influenced by our social context. Some of this research even takes the stronger stance that some of the mechanisms that are typically thought of as being within the purview of individual cognition actually have a social function.

It will begin in February 2011. Every two weeks a new paper will be posted and a moderated discussion will take place online among invited discussants and the public one the one hand, and the author on the other hand.

See also:


David Guyatt
03-17-2010, 10:58 PM
"Our" task is not only to survey and watch what is being said, done, developed and used by the unspeakable gang, but to make every effort in our limited circumstances to understand and develop the antidotes and inject them into the culture.

Amen to that Ed.

Ed Jewett
03-18-2010, 10:31 PM
Darpa Wants Self-Guiding, Storytelling Cameras

By Katie Drummond (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/drummk/) http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif (katiedrumm@gmail.com)
March 17, 2010 |
12:57 pm |
Categories: DarpaWatch (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/category/darpawatch/)


The Pentagon’s risk-taking research agency is kicking off a new program to turn everyday cameras into autonomous ‘bots with problem-solving smarts.
Darpa is already after all kinds of highly intelligent robo-critters. In the past few months, they’ve launched projects to create a real-life C3PO (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/darpa-c3po/) and a surveillance system to pinpoint threats (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/pentagon-spy-cams-to-find-threats-in-weak-evidence/) in heaps of visual data. Now, the agency wants artificial intelligence-powered cameras that can recognize objects — and then tell a story about them.
Next month, Darpa will host a one-day conference to launch the project, which has been given a slightly Orwellian title: “The Mind’s Eye (https://www.fbo.gov/download/ef9/ef9960d732bf796e6557916b4adf3ea9/DARPA_Minds_Eye_Industry_Day_Announcement_15March2 010_%282%29.pdf).” (.pdf) The idea is to create machines that are endowed with what remains an exclusively human ability: visual intelligence.
We’ve got the ability to take in our surrounding, interpret them and learn concepts that apply to them. We’re also masters of manipulation, courtesy of a little thing called imagination: toying around with made up scenes to solve problems or make decisions.
But, of course, our intellect and decision-making skills are often marred by emotion, fatigue or bias. Enter machines. Darpa wants cameras that can capture their surroundings, and then employ robust intellect and imagination to “reason over these learned interpretations.”

State-of-the-art cameras can already recognize objects — the “nouns” of cognition. What Darpa wants is the verb: “To add the perceptual and cognitive underpinnings for recognizing and reasoning … enabling a more complete narrative of action in the visual experience.”
Darpa’s end goal is a “smart camera” that can report back on war-zone activity with the same detail a trained human operative could offer. Or, perhaps, replace those troublesome reporters?
Photo: U.S military

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/darpa-wants-self-guiding-storytelling-cameras/#ixzz0iZPSYx6y

Ed Jewett
03-18-2010, 10:36 PM
Next up in the DARPA bag of tricks...

Propaganda that writes itself and then seeks placement in media and the voices of politicians ...

artificially-intelligent computer keyboards that transform dissidence into abject concurrence...

external human gene manipulation that automatically enlists the individual in the Marines at age 18 ...

David Guyatt
03-19-2010, 12:43 PM
Propaganda that writes itself and then seeks placement in media and the voices of politicians ...

Here in the UK we already have that. It's scientific name is Peter "Mandy" Mandelson, but is known by those who work with it as the "Prince of Darkness".

Ed Jewett
03-28-2010, 03:54 PM
Neuroscientists Don’t Believe in Souls—But That Doesn’t Mean They Can’t Sell Theirs (to the Pentagon) (http://cryptogon.com/?p=14548)

March 28th, 2010 Via: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=neuroscientists-dont-believe-in-sou-2010-03-24):
It is because I have such high hopes for neuroscience that I’m so upset by two trends in financing of the field. One involves neuroscience’s growing dependence on the Pentagon, which is seeking new ways to help our soldiers and harm our enemies. For a still-timely overview of neuroweapons research, check out the 2006 book Mind Wars by bioethicist Jonathan Moreno of the University of Pennsylvania. (PR disclosure: I brought Moreno to my school to give a talk on March 10.) Potential neuroweapons include drugs, transcranial magnetic stimulators and implanted brain chips that soup up the sensory capacities and memories of soldiers, as well as brain-scanners and electromagnetic beams that read, control or scramble the thoughts of bad guys.
When Moreno was writing his book, neuroscientists were reluctant to talk about their affair with the Pentagon and seemed embarrassed by it. No longer. Last year the National Academy of Sciences published a 136-page report, Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications, that makes an unabashed pitch for militarizing brain research. The authors include the neuroluminaries Floyd Bloom of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and editor-in-chief of Science; and Michael Gazzaniga of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Both are members of the U.S. Council on Bioethics.
Here are some ethical questions: Will the militarization of neuroscience really make the world safer, or just trigger a new arms race? Have researchers considered how non-Americans are likely to perceive our neuroweapons program? Some neuroscientists dismiss bionic warriors as a sci-fi fantasy unlikely to be realized soon, if ever. But then should researchers exploit the U.S. military’s gullibility?

Ed Jewett
03-31-2010, 08:35 PM
Neuroscientists Influence People’s Moral Judgments by Disrupting Specific Brain Region (http://cryptogon.com/?p=14585)

March 30th, 2010 Via: Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100329152516.htm):
MIT neuroscientists have shown they can influence people’s moral judgments by disrupting a specific brain region — a finding that helps reveal how the brain constructs morality.
To make moral judgments about other people, we often need to infer their intentions — an ability known as “theory of mind.” For example, if a hunter shoots his friend while on a hunting trip, we need to know what the hunter was thinking: Was he secretly jealous, or did he mistake his friend for a duck?
Previous studies have shown that a brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) is highly active when we think about other people’s intentions, thoughts and beliefs. In the new study, the researchers disrupted activity in the right TPJ by inducing a current in the brain using a magnetic field applied to the scalp. They found that the subjects’ ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people’s intentions — for example, a failed murder attempt — was impaired.
The researchers, led by Rebecca Saxe, MIT assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences, report their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study offers “striking evidence” that the right TPJ, located at the brain’s surface above and behind the right ear, is critical for making moral judgments, says Liane Young, lead author of the paper. It’s also startling, since under normal circumstances people are very confident and consistent in these kinds of moral judgments, says Young, a postdoctoral associate in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.
“You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior,” she says. “To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people’s moral judgments is really astonishing.”
How they did it: The researchers used a non-invasive technique known as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to selectively interfere with brain activity in the right TPJ. A magnetic field applied to a small area of the skull creates weak electric currents that impede nearby brain cells’ ability to fire normally, but the effect is only temporary.
In one experiment, volunteers were exposed to TMS for 25 minutes before taking a test in which they read a series of scenarios and made moral judgments of characters’ actions on a scale of 1 (absolutely forbidden) to 7 (absolutely permissible).
In a second experiment, TMS was applied in 500-milisecond bursts at the moment when the subject was asked to make a moral judgment. For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for someone to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely. In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm.
In both experiments, the researchers found that when the right TPJ was disrupted, subjects were more likely to judge failed attempts to harm as morally permissible. Therefore, the researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects’ ability to interpret others’ intentions, forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgments.
Next steps: Young is now doing a study on the role of the right TPJ in judgments of people who are morally lucky or unlucky. For example, a drunk driver who hits and kills a pedestrian is unlucky, compared to an equally drunk driver who makes it home safely, but the unlucky homicidal driver tends to be judged more morally blameworthy.
Posted in Mind Control (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=31) | Top Of Page (http://cryptogon.com/?p=14585#)

3 Responses to “Neuroscientists Influence People’s Moral Judgments by Disrupting Specific Brain Region”

PeterofLoneTree (http://bigbrassblog.com/) Says:
March 30th, 2010 at 4:51 pm (http://cryptogon.com/?p=14585#comment-18586) There is a rather lengthy work detailing right-brain and left-brain functions contained in “Chapter XXIV Lucifer and the Pot of Gold or The Quest for the Holy Grail of No Anticipation!” at
It’s part of a larger work: “The Wave Series by Laura Knight-Jadczyk”
oelsen Says:
March 30th, 2010 at 5:35 pm (http://cryptogon.com/?p=14585#comment-18587) http://unibas.ch/index.cfm?uui.....how_long=1 (http://unibas.ch/index.cfm?uuid=A8CE679D3005C8DEA328A2281308F435&type=search&show_long=1)
This was an international study, just in case someone is interested. (I hope its the same paper/sorry, only german afaik).
Zenc (http://www.contracontrol.com/) Says:
March 30th, 2010 at 11:30 pm (http://cryptogon.com/?p=14585#comment-18589) “Gee Sarge, why does my compass always point to my new helmet?”

Jan Klimkowski
03-31-2010, 08:55 PM
To make moral judgments about other people, we often need to infer their intentions — an ability known as “theory of mind.” For example, if a hunter shoots his friend while on a hunting trip, we need to know what the hunter was thinking: Was he secretly jealous, or did he mistake his friend for a duck?

Was Lil' Dick Cheney the control subject for this MIT, um, moral experiment? :help:

If a hunter shoots his friend was he secretly jealous, did he mistake his friend for a duck, or is he a Strangelovian megalomaniac?

Surreal. :alberteinstein:

Ed Jewett
04-01-2010, 04:51 AM
Neuroscientists use magnetism to fool our moral compass (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/neuroscientists-use-magnetism-to-fool-our-moral-compass.html)

March 31, 2010 | 10:51 am
Neuroscientists have marched forward by many means in their understanding of how the brain and its component parts work. They have long studied people with injuries to certain parts of their brains and, by seeing how the behavior of those individuals changes, have inferred the role that the damaged part of the brain plays. In more recent years, functional magnetic resonance imaging (http://www.fmri.org/fmri.htm) and electro-encephalograms (http://www.ecnsweb.com/) (those electrical wires you see attached to babies' bald pates in pictures) have helped researchers divine the roles of certain brain regions by "seeing" blood flow or metabolic activity in those regions during certain tasks.
But there's also a little known and somewhat low-tech gadget that can have surprising powers of revelation. It's called transcranial magnetic stimulation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11252771), in which a small device that emits a powerful but narrow-spectrum magnetic charge is passed over a region of the brain. It won't penetrate very far, but the result is that the cells in that region of the brain are briefly scrambled: For a few minutes, they go silent or misfire. (Neuroscientists have been known to have a bit of fun with this gadget.)
In the neuroscience lab of MIT researcher Rebecca Saxe (http://saxelab.mit.edu/), the role of the right temporoparietal junction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraparietal_sulcus) -- an area toward the back of your head, a couple of inches above your right ear -- is an area of particular interest. This area has long been thought to play a role (http://www.psych.unito.it/csc/pers/chiavarino/pdf/2004b.pdf) in how we interpret the actions and motives of the people around us -- a largely-human talent called "theory of mind."
In a recent study using transcranial magnetic stimulation, researchers in Saxe's lab have found that the right temporoparietal junction -- and our ability to infer other people's thoughts and motives -- may be important in how we make and act on moral and ethical judgments.
In a pair of experiments published in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/13.toc#ThisWeekinPNAS), MIT researchers passed a transcranial magnetic stimulator over the right temporoparietal junction, in one case for 25 minutes while the study participants read a series of scenarios and decided how they should behave, and in the second experiment, briefly, while participants were asked to make a complex moral judgment. In both experiments, researchers set up the moral conundrums so that the participants could make a dangerous or immoral decision (such as driving drunk) but not have any moral consequences (such as an accident ensuing).
With their right temporoparietal junctions scrambled, participants seemed unable to recognize an action as wrong unless it led to harm -- a moral judgment that virtually all could make easily when their brains were not being magnetically scrambled. It seems that when unable to infer the motives and actions of another, they had to rely only on outcomes to tell them if their own actions were ethical.
The implications for human behavior are potentially far-reaching: Unless we can understand what's on other people's minds, we may be hampered in understanding how best to live cooperatively (and ethically) with others. And then there's a take-home message for each of us: If someone you know seems to behave without moral bearings, you might try looking for a transcranial magnetic stimulator hidden with the remote control in the folds of his or her couch. Or you might infer that his or her powers of "theory of mind" need a bit of exercise.
-- Melissa Healy

More in: behavior (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/behavior/), cognition (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/cognition/), psychology (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/psychology/)

David Guyatt
04-01-2010, 11:09 AM
Don't laugh, but in view of the foregoing I'm going to start wearing tinfoil hats.

Magda Hassan
04-01-2010, 11:55 AM

David Guyatt
04-01-2010, 04:14 PM

Ed Jewett
04-30-2010, 02:58 AM
Military Wants to Super-Charge Troop Smarts

By Katie Drummond (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/drummk/) http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif (katiedrumm@gmail.com)
April 29, 2010 |
8:07 am |
Categories: Science! (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/category/science/)

The Pentagon’s been trying to get ahead of the curve on neuroscience for years, toying with ideas like mind-reading whether people are lying (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/uncle-sam-wants/) and performance-degrading drugs (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/08/the-dia-looks-i/) for enemy combatants. Now, it’s launching a major effort to harness neuroscience in a way that might better prepare soldiers for the mental rigors of modern warfare.
In a series of small business solicitations released last week, the Office of the Secretary of Defense outlined plans for a new “Cognitive Readiness Technology” program with the aim of “making our warfighters as cognitively strong (http://www.dodsbir.net/solicitation/sbir102/OSD102.htm) as they are physically strong.”
Neuroscience is at the locus of the program. Before they can super-charge cognition, Pentagon scientists need to understand exactly how it works. So they’re launching “Neuromorphic Models of Human Social Cultural Behavior” (HSCB) to accurately model human cognition, including how we perceive, learn and retain information. HSCB models already exist, and are used by troops and decision-makers to predict the outcome of a choices during a mission. But the models “are only as good as the fidelity of the human behavior representations (HBR) that form them.” Right now, those representations are based entirely on empirical observation, which the military wants to swap out for a model that can tap into “the functions of the brain that give rise to actual human cognition.”
It’s not the first time the Pentagon has tried to map the human mind. Last year, research agency Darpa requested proposals for systems that would synchronize neural brain waves (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/total-recall-pentagon-looks-to-optimize-troops-minds/) to optimize the mind’s storage capacity and memory recall. The agency has also tried to create synthetic versions of living brains (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/08/darpa-fake-brai/), complete with “neuroscience-inspired architecture.”
The military wants cognitive mapping to help assess troop readiness in a war-zone. Their small-business solicitations include a request for embeddable body sensors that could automatically determine mental preparedness, which can be influenced by factors like fatigue, cognitive overload or stress, based on physiological and neural data. The sensors would do more than just analyze the cognitive status of their wearer — they’d be combined with the data from other team members, to instantly identify just how performance-ready a given unit actually is.
But no matter how cognitively capable troops become, they’ll still rely on computers to handle much of their workload. Humans, the solicitation notes, “are quick to arrive at initial decisions,” but computers can more quickly calculate pros and cons of different tactics. That’s why the military also wants neuroscience to “bridge the human-machine systems gap” and turn troops and computers into collaborative units. Their “neuro-cognitive control of human machine systems,” would tap into the neural signals that indicate desired actions, then transmit them to a computer to determine the optimal approach and carry it out.
And a training program that emphasizes brawny brains over bodies reflects a trend across Pentagon departments: Just last month, the Army announced a redesign of their physical-fitness program (http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/army-updates-fitness-training-for-softer-recruits/19401789) to accommodate troops spending more time behind computer screens than they do on their feet.
Photo: U.S Army

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/military-wants-to-super-charge-troop-smarts/#ixzz0mY4WOPP9

Ed Jewett
04-30-2010, 03:00 AM
Pentagon: Boost Training With Computer-Troop Mind Meld

By Katie Drummond (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/drummk/) http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif (katiedrumm@gmail.com)
April 27, 2010 |
1:13 pm |
Categories: Gadgets and Gear (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/category/gadgets-and-gear/)

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/04/augcog_boeing1.jpg (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/04/augcog_boeing1.jpg)
The Pentagon is looking to better train its troops — by scanning their minds as they play video games.
Adaptive, mind-reading computer systems (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72996) have been a work-in-progress among military agencies for at least a decade. In 2000, far-out research agency Darpa launched “Augmented Cognition,” a program that sought to develop computers that used EEG scans to adjust how they displayed information — visually, orally, or otherwise — to avoid overtaxing one realm of a troop’s cognition.
The Air Force also took up the idea, by trying to use EEGs to “assess the operator’s actual cognitive state” (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/03/augcog-continue/) and “avoid cognitive bottlenecks before they occur.”
Zeroing in on brainpower is a strategy that reflects the changing tactics of fighting wars: today’s troop needs to be as cognitively ready as they are physically — if not more. They’ve also got to spend more time on the ground in urban settings, interacting with locals and canvassing for information. That’s where virtual cultural trainers often come in handy. Troops are prepped in language, social norms and cultural sensitivity, before they even leave their base.
The trainers are quickly becoming more sophisticated. As Danger Room pal Peter Singer notes (http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0222_video_game_warfare_singer.aspx), the Pentagon is already using “three-dimensional experiences that hit multiple senses,” including, in one case, a wearable collar that emits key odors.
Now, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is soliciting small business proposals (http://www.dodsbir.net/solicitation/sbir102/OSD102.htm) for an even more immersive trainer, one that includes voice-recognition technology, and picks up on vocal tone and facial gestures. The game would then react and adapt to a war-fighter’s every action. For example, if a player’s gesture “insults the local tribal leader,” the trainee would “find that future interactions with the population are more difficult and more hostile.”
And, most importantly, the new programs would react to the warrior’s own physiological and neurological cues. They’d be monitored using an EEG, eye tracking, heart and respiration rate, and other physiological markers. Based on the metrics, the game would adapt in difficulty and “keep trainees in an optimal state of learning.”

The OSD isn’t ready to use neuro-based systems in the war zone, but the agency does want to capitalize on advances in neuroscience that have assigned meaningful value to intuitive decision-making. As the OSD solicitation points out, troops often need to make fast-paced decisions in high-stress environments, with limited information and context. Well-reasoned, analytic decisions are rarely possible — which would make intuition, if it were reliable, an ideal tool to give American troops the upper hand.
That’s where neuroscience comes in. OSD wants simulated games that use EEGs to monitor the cognitive patterns of trainees, particularly at what’s thought to be the locus of neurally based, intuitive decision-making — the basal ganglia. In his seminal paper on the neuroscience of intuition (http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Intuition.pdf), Harvard’s Matthew Lieberman notes that the ganglia can “learn temporal patterns that are predictive of events of significance, regardless of conscious intent … as long as exposure is repeatedly instantiated.”
By using neural monitoring to supervise a trainee’s progress in their simulated world, the military could bolster the odds that snap decisions in the real-world will be based on more than just a gut feeling.
Photo: Jeff Corwin Photography/Boeing
See Also:

Pentagon’s PCs Bend to Your Brain (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/03/the_us_military/)
Pentagon’s Mind-Reading Computers Replicate (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/03/augcog-continue/)
Defense Spooks: Let’s Control Enemy Minds (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/08/the-dia-looks-i/)
Army Funds ‘Synthetic Telepathy’ Research (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/08/army-funds-synt/)
Top Pentagon Scientists Fear Brain-Modified Foes (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/jason-warns-of/)
Pentagon Begins Fake Cat Brain Project (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/08/darpa-fake-brai/)

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/pentagon-boost-training-with-computer-troop-mind-meld/#ixzz0mY58sfpP

Ed Jewett
05-08-2010, 11:26 PM
Pentagon Turns to Brain Implants to Repair Damaged Minds

By Katie Drummond (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/author/drummk/) http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/wp-content/themes/wired/images/envelope.gif (katiedrumm@gmail.com)
May 7, 2010 |
8:29 am |
Categories: DarpaWatch (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/category/darpawatch/)

An estimated 10 to 20 percent (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22711522/) of troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, which afflict 1.7 million Americans each year. Now the Pentagon’s rolling out a revolutionary initiative to treat the condition: brain implants that one researcher likens to “replacement parts” for damaged gray matter.
“When something happens to the brain right now, there’s so little that the medical community can do,” Krishna Shenoy, associate professor of electrical engineering and bioengineering at Stanford University, told Danger Room. “Our goal is to understand — and then be able to change — how a brain responds to trauma.”
No surprise that military extreme science agency Darpa is behind the project, which is called REPAIR (http://www.darpa.mil/dso/solicitations/baa09-27.htm), or Reorganization and Plasticity to Accelerate Injury Recovery. Yesterday, they announced an initial two-year round of $14.9 million in funding for four institutions, led by Stanford and Brown universities, that will collaborate on the brain-chip project. All in, it’ll involve 10 professors and their research teams, working in neuroscience, psychiatry, brain modeling and even semiconductors.

Significant progress has already been made in understanding brain injury. Scientists can create conceptual, mathematical models of brain activity, and are also able to record the electrical pulses emitted by individual neurons in the brain, which offers insight into how those neurons communicate. That knowledge has spurred rapid progress in neural-assisted prosthetic devices (http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrusts/bio/restbio_tech/revprost/index.htm), a program that Shenoy collaborated on with Geoffrey Ling, the same Darpa program manager behind REPAIR.
But what experts can’t yet do, Shenoy said, is alter those electrical pulses to turn brain circuits on or off. His team will use optogenetics, an emerging technique that involves emitting light pulses to precisely trigger neural activity, to develop an implanted TBI treatment device.
“Before this, emitting light into the brain would be like hitting it with a hammer,” Shenoy said. “What we’re doing now is pin-pointing a single neuron, and that neuron will naturally change its activity depending on the cue.”
The implants developed by the project will likely be composed of electrodes or optical fibers, and will sit on the surface of the brain. They’ll read electrical signals from neurons, and deliver appropriate light pulses to stimulate other brain regions in response. The implants would allow the brain to operate normally, by acting as substitutes for areas that were damaged or “unavailable.”
First up for Shenoy and company are optogenetic tests on mice, rats and eventually monkeys, to better understand how different regions of the brain interact. For example, how one area of the brain knows which signals to send to other parts. Once they’ve got that down, the researchers hope to develop chips that essentially mimic those interactions, so that an implant can “read a signal from region A, bypass damaged area B, and get that signal to C,” Shenoy said.
And while Darpa’s interested in ailing vets, the implants could have broad civilian application, including help for those who’ve suffered a stroke or undergone surgery to remove a brain tumor. If all goes according to plan, Shenoy expects implants for lab animals within four years.
Photo: National Science Foundation
See Also:

DARPA to Map Monkey Brains (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/darpa-to-map-monkey-brains/)
Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push/)
Military Wants to Super-Charge Troop Smarts (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/military-wants-to-super-charge-troop-smarts/)
Total Recall: Pentagon Looks to ‘Optimize’ Troops’ Minds (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/total-recall-pentagon-looks-to-optimize-troops-minds/)
Darpa: Freeze Soldiers to Save Injured Brains (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/new-darpa-treatment-freeze-troops-with-brain-injuries/)
Army’s Helmet Sensors Measure Hits to Head (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/01/helmet-sensors/)

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/pentagon-turns-to-brain-implants-to-repair-damaged-minds/#ixzz0nNq9OTws