• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The book you cite should be of interest to broad segments of modern society not 'housed' in academic institutions. I followed links to this discussion page that connects the range of issues and problems involved in the thesis and subject matter of the book -- Sustainable Knowledge: An Exchange, Davis, Dieleman, Frodeman, Remedios, Riggio, Simbürger, Suomela « Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective

knowledge in economic terms ... fascinating!

When we end disciplinary knowledge production (i.e. endless production mainly for our peers, with no real limits besides how much effort we decide to put into it) to enter an era of interdisciplinary knowledge production, we step into an economic world in the wider sense that I just described. But this is not particularly about economics in the sense of money (though that will be part of it). The economic (or limiting) element may be time, or patience, or simply the particular needs of a particular ‘user’. And so I do not see any particular risks in thinking about knowledge in economic terms.

knowledge over-production ...
 
The Philosophy of Philosophical Institutions | Daily Nous

Questions the effect of the discipline and housing of Philosophy, it's professionalization - on doing philosophy. May be of interest to you working outside the academy:

. Like Moliere’s Bourgeois Gentleman, who did not know that he had been speaking prose, philosophers seem innocent of the fact that they have been doing disciplinary philosophy, or that one might have reasons to object to this fact. And so even when their subject matter consists of something of real significance to the wider world, philosophers typically discuss the topic in a way that precludes the active interest of and involvement by non-philosophers.

Why is peer-reviewed scholarship the sole standard for judging philosophic work, rather than also the effects that such work has on the larger world? And why is there only one social role for those with Ph.D.s in philosophy – namely, to talk to other Ph.D.s in philosophy

Here is the paper that was the subject of the Nous blog you cited:

Essay on the problems with philosophy in academe | InsideHigherEd

One of the authors of that paper, Robert Frodeman, is involved in the discussion page I linked from the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective.

I think we'd need to read both the paper and the linked discussion to gain an appreciation of the significance (including philosophical significance) of the social and cultural criticism developed in the two sources. The book being discussed there is the following by Frodeman;

Sustainable Knowledge - Robert Frodeman - Palgrave Macmillan

Description of Frodeman's book:

What is the future of the university? The modern university system, created in the late 19th century and developed across the 20th century, was built upon the notion of disciplinarity. Today the social, epistemological, and technological conditions that supported the disciplinary pursuit of knowledge are coming to an end. Knowledge production has itself become unsustainable: we are drowning in knowledge even as new PhDs cannot find work. Sustainable Knowledge explores these questions and offers a new account of what is at stake in talk about 'interdisciplinarity'.

Sustainable Knowledge develops two themes. First, it offers an account of contemporary knowledge production in terms of the concepts of disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and sustainability. Second, it reconceives the role of philosophy and the humanities both within the academy and across society. It argues that philosophy and the humanities must reinvent themselves, taking on the Socratic task of providing a historical and philosophical critique of society.
 
Last edited:
Here is the paper that was the subject of the Nous blog you cited:

Essay on the problems with philosophy in academe | InsideHigherEd

One of the authors of that paper, Robert Frodeman, is involved in the discussion page I linked from the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective.

I think we'd need to read both the paper and the linked discussion to gain an appreciation of the significance (including philosophical significance) of the social and cultural criticism developed in the two sources. The book being discussed there is the following by Frodeman;

Sustainable Knowledge - Robert Frodeman - Palgrave Macmillan

Description of Frodeman's book:

What is the future of the university? The modern university system, created in the late 19th century and developed across the 20th century, was built upon the notion of disciplinarity. Today the social, epistemological, and technological conditions that supported the disciplinary pursuit of knowledge are coming to an end. Knowledge production has itself become unsustainable: we are drowning in knowledge even as new PhDs cannot find work. Sustainable Knowledge explores these questions and offers a new account of what is at stake in talk about 'interdisciplinarity'.

Sustainable Knowledge develops two themes. First, it offers an account of contemporary knowledge production in terms of the concepts of disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and sustainability. Second, it reconceives the role of philosophy and the humanities both within the academy and across society. It argues that philosophy and the humanities must reinvent themselves, taking on the Socratic task of providing a historical and philosophical critique of society.

Read the article and I'm just finishing up the discussion:

“Lambs being led to slaughter.” A friend made that remark some 15 years ago, speaking of the situation of incoming graduate students in his physics department who assumed that a) in their careers they would be able to devote themselves to science, and b) they would be able to find positions like those of their professors. Neither point is likely to be true. The increasing dominance of neoliberal perspectives means that scientists are perforce interdisciplined: they will have to be savvy to the policy dimensions of science as well as be competent scientists if they expect to be funded. Moreover, their place on the exponential curve of academic hiring means that positions are declining even as their numbers are increasing (as I note in the book, now 75% of teaching positions across higher education are non-tenure track — tenure is being de facto eliminated without a fight).

There is a tragic element here: young people filled with the desire to pursue knowledge are destined to a series of low paying and abusive jobs. But more to the point is the need to recognize that we are at the end of a period that counts as a historical aberration. Idealists have never been adequately funded. As the saying goes, philosophy always walks in rags. And up through the 1930’s a PhD in physics was as non-employable as a philosophy degree. This changed through a peculiar set of circumstances — the success of science in the war, the explosion of the knowledge economy post WWII, and liberal and conservative agreement about the need for public funding of higher education — all presuppositions that are now gone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Cognitive Short-Circuit of ‘Artificial Consciousness’ | Science and Nonduality

The new sci-fi film Ex_Machina has been teasing back into the cultural dialogue dreams of artificial consciousness: the idea that we humans, through the Faustian power of technology, can birth into being mechanisms capable of inner life, subjectivity and affection. Since these dreams are entirely based on implicit assumptions about the nature of consciousness and reality at large, I thought a few observations would be opportune.

x-machina.jpg

The computer engineer’s dream of birthing a conscious child into the world without the messiness and fragility of life is an infantile delusion; a confused, partial, distorted projection of archetypal images and drives. It is the expression of the male’s hidden aspiration for the female’s divine power of creation. It represents a confused attempt to transcend the deep-seated fear of one’s own nature as a living, breathing entity condemned to death from birth. It embodies a misguided and utterly useless search for the eternal, motivated only by one’s amnesia of one’s own true nature. The fable of artificial consciousness is the imaginary bandaid sought to cover the engineer’s wound of ignorance.


And a response:

Conscious Entities » Blog Archive » Alters of the Universe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Cognitive Short-Circuit of ‘Artificial Consciousness’ | Science and Nonduality

The new sci-fi film Ex_Machina has been teasing back into the cultural dialogue dreams of artificial consciousness: the idea that we humans, through the Faustian power of technology, can birth into being mechanisms capable of inner life, subjectivity and affection. Since these dreams are entirely based on implicit assumptions about the nature of consciousness and reality at large, I thought a few observations would be opportune.

x-machina.jpg

The computer engineer’s dream of birthing a conscious child into the world without the messiness and fragility of life is an infantile delusion; a confused, partial, distorted projection of archetypal images and drives. It is the expression of the male’s hidden aspiration for the female’s divine power of creation. It represents a confused attempt to transcend the deep-seated fear of one’s own nature as a living, breathing entity condemned to death from birth. It embodies a misguided and utterly useless search for the eternal, motivated only by one’s amnesia of one’s own true nature. The fable of artificial consciousness is the imaginary bandaid sought to cover the engineer’s wound of ignorance.


And a response:

Conscious Entities » Blog Archive » Alters of the Universe
He hem!! It's a si-fiction movie! And not wishing to give anything away, the AI part is incidental to the film. The film is actually about the relation of power to loneliness imo.
 
Last edited:
He hem!! It's a si-fiction movie! And not wishing to give anything away, the AI part is incidental to the film. The film is actually about the relation of power to loneliness imo.

I haven't seen the film and am not motivated to watch much of this kind of thing (AI-focused science fiction). But I'm interested in the ideational effects of all these films on the general public. What are people who follow this genre inclined to think and believe about themselves, their consciousnesses, consciousness in general as evolved in nature, and the possibility and meaning of 'artificial intelligence'?
 
I did not read everything in this thread but I did not see mention of the dumping of human brain contents to a computer chip at SRI in 1999. Have you seen Futurescape? Things are a lot further along than just interfacing the brain with machines.

Is the US building stations to create the force field Tesla said he could create to protect a country? Will these stations protect Earth from aliens? I don't think so. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...orldgrid09.htm

This seems to be more than mere mind control to me. Bruce Cathie wrote about Omega Stations making high yield atomic weapons far more potent - I don't think this is what these stations are all about, but maybe that is a little bit of it.
Nuclear is not nearly as dangerous as many other things - including non-lethal weapons (IMHO). I wonder about the name Omega - "the end" as in "I am the Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the end." Are we in for a planned apocalypse de-pop? Will these stations control weather which also impacts tectonic movements? When I read here - that underground facilities include nuclear powered energy I think that it is also going to protect some important people like the facilities surrounding Washington built for over a million IMPORTANT people.


I don't blame Tesla for the uses made of his science - even though he worked in Black Ops like Montauk. But I do wonder if Pine Gap is the same as Omega Stations and more able to do what Russia's Tesla Tower can do. Russia never had this kind of money.

http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.ca/2...alia_5939.html

Here is a site promoting Preston Nichols which might even be done by him or his semi-fraudulent (according to Jesse Ventura recently) gang. It includes a book I wrote, and addresses facts Jesse was not looking for that Preston is correctly talking about. Same with Swerdlow - attunement and mind control are a large part of what Tesla Tech is now being used for - see threads on Omega Stations, Frequency Fence and HAARP, etc.. Jesse needs a real researcher like me - but if truth ever appeared on his show he might gain traction in the minds of people. Imagine if people actually started learning?

https://concen.org/content/preston-n...-research-pack

The next author is addressing a whole host of issues near and dear to my heart. I like to think I have taken what some detractors have labelled 'conspiracy theory' into a new realm. I consider this genre to be Progressive and liberal both politically and scientifically. It does not cringe from facts but prioritizes possible actions and seeks pragmatic plans. First step being informing oneself and our 'brothers'. Father de Chardin called it a "Conspiracy of Love". There are many actual conspiracy theorists who work for the behemoth and get good money from their sheople or the government. I have quoted Fritz Springmeyer and Tom Horn - they are telling some truth and weaving the usual agenda into it. We have contributors at W-M who are doing the same.

You'll never think the same way again. . . The Revelation

This discussion is part of a favorite movie of mine.


This link and website introduction makes it sound like consciousness can be proven in a mechanistic scientific manner and some day that might be true. It has always been part of mystical knowledge and part of the metaphysicist's approach to think of the universe and each part of it as connected. The Buddhists say "All is within, the universe." I am not convinced that consciousness studies have accelerated enough to claim this level of certainty. Futurescape is saying they have machines that will allow control of the collective human mind or World Mind. I understand how they are going to do that and I have laid out the history of their efforts to that end. THAT does not mean they will succeed - and I hope they don't or that they only succeed to a degree which makes some sense.

Maybe by 2020 when HAARP and SDI satellites are integrated with Pine Gap and other Omega Stations as well as the Frequency Fence they won't need to implant people in order to achieve effects akin to mind control. The issue still left is soul - and what it is on relation to consciousness. That is why I agreed with Bill Joy in his March 2000 Wired Magazine article wherein he disagreed with Hillis who looks forward to dumping himself into a sentient robot. I accept brain contents have been dumped onto a computer chip since SRI did it in 1999. I know they have been working on this stuff for centuries if not millennia.

Some adepts have had mind control methods including possessions since the days of shamanic Dream Dancers over a million years ago. Religions have inculcated their sheople for a long time and some have even succeeded in taking over or cracking a soul (see L. Ron Hubbard). I still say the soul is not so easy to take over and consciousness exists in each atom of our self and selves. So as the Mayan saying goes "Do not put yourself in front of your SELF."

Consciousness Mechanics

Consciousness Mechanics



Consciousness mechanics means just that—the mechanics of consciousness. Just as quantum mechanics serves to explain the behavior of quanta, consciousness mechanics serves to explain the mechanical behavior of consciousness. Consciousness mechanics is about expounding the nature of existence and the basic structure of reality, by expounding the way consciousness experiences itself. Consciousness mechanics serves as one perspective, one purview, one vantage point that delves into the relationship between existence and the general human experience.

But what in fact is consciousness?



Consciousness is merely the quality of self-awareness.



As such, consciousness can also be defined as the following:

Consciousness is that which experiences its own reality.

Consciousness is the identity of existence.

Consciousness is the only thing that can actually be experienced.



Consciousness, unlike quanta, cannot be defined using mathematical terms because mathematics is an imaginary concept. Mathematics is a symbolic language that is used to communicate certain concepts regarding events within the illusion of space and time. "One plus," "two times," and "three minus" another number are expressions that describe an illusionary perception, because time itself is an illusion. More than one thing cannot ever actually exist because of two main reasons:

1. No perceived thing is exactly the same as another. Things can be extremely similar, but nothing can ever actually be duplicated, because even a duplication contains its own unique description of it being a duplication. Every object holds a unique locational quality in space and time.

2. Every seemingly individual thing is fundamentally all one thing. This is not a metaphysical romanticism; this is a physical axiom. From the human perspective, this is physiologically demonstrated by the fact that you can only experience an "outer world" as personal brain state. The idea of "things being separate from one another" is mechanically incorrect, because from the human perspective, there is only one momentary observation in time that keeps changing. The observer only observes one experience of itself that changes; nothing it observes can mechanically be separate from itself, or else there would be no experience of it at all—not even the experience of observation.

Consciousness is that observer. All experiences of all events and phenomena take place within one's consciousness. Consciousness is what everything in existence fundamentally is. All notions of "energy," "matter," "waves," "thoughts," and "particles" are defined experiences of consciousness—they are just labeled observations. All that is observed is an experience of the observer's consciousness. What you perceive to be "the world around you" is an experience of consciousness. Consciousness is what the experience is!

The experiential universe around you is but an experience within you.

Reality is but an experience, an exploration, an unending discovery of consciousness.

You are your reality.

You are your experience.

You are the Universe
 
The issue still left is soul - and what it is on relation to consciousness. That is why I agreed with Bill Joy in his March 2000 Wired Magazine article wherein he disagreed with Hillis who looks forward to dumping himself into a sentient robot.

I agreed with Bill Joy as well, but it's a long time since I read that paper in Wired and I don't remember what his views were on 'soul'. My impression is that if he spoke of 'soul' it would have been in terms of its integrity and significance in individuals. Are you pursuing a theory of a 'World Soul'? Would you clarify what you mean by that concept?

I accept brain contents have been dumped onto a computer chip since SRI did it in 1999. I know they have been working on this stuff for centuries if not millennia.

I've read about SRI's research concerning consciousness and psi, remote viewing, etc., but had not heard about the 'dumping' of 'brain contents' onto a computer chip at SRI. Do you have a reference to an account of that experiment?

Also, what do you mean by 'they'?

And also, would you explain the basis for the following idea?

from the human perspective, there is only one momentary observation in time that keeps changing. The observer only observes one experience of itself that changes; nothing it observes can mechanically be separate from itself, or else there would be no experience of it at all—not even the experience of observation.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Excerpt from that discussion:

'
  1. 22. Pentti Haikonen says:
    Arnold,

    Normal children usually have a very good sensory apparatus for the perception of the surrounding 3D space, namely eyes. However, also blind people are considered as conscious beings.

    Jochen,

    Intentionality must begin with perception. Our sensors provide the brain with neural signals that are causally connected to the perceived entity. This calls for “rigid” wiring and sub-symbolic approach, not symbols that would have to be interpreted. In the brain these signal patterns appear as qualia that are self-explanatory. (How does this happen; that’s the hard problem -or is it?). Next these patterns can be associated with other patterns and in this way they can be used as symbols, (e.g. words for things and matters, in this case these linguistic symbols are perceived sound patterns or sound qualia). The same applies to every other sensory and motor modality. The web of relations resides in the strengths of synapses and as such it cannot be an object for introspection. “The empty web of relations” is only a possibility in a philosopher’s mind. RIP priest Brentano. Robot XCR-1 may be simple, but not so simple that this problem would not manifest itself, if it were real. I do not know if programmed symbolic AI has these kinds of problems.

    May 20, 2015, 4:08 pm
  2. 10f249d3bec66970863e9f13e048b11b

    23. Arnold Trehub says:
    Pentti: “Normal children usually have a very good sensory apparatus for the perception of the surrounding 3D space, namely eyes. [1] However, also blind people are considered as conscious beings. [2]

    1. This is a common misunderstanding. The 2D retinas of the eyes cannot sense the surrounding 3D space. A special kind of post- retinal brain mechanism is needed to give us an egocentric representation of the coherent volumetric space we live in.

    2. Blind people are conscious because they too have this brain mechanism that represents the space around them from an egocentric perspective. Without it they would be helpless.

    May 20, 2015, 8:11 pm
 
Dear Constance

You have asked a few questions the last of which comes from reading what other consciousness researchers said. The first relates to Wired Magazine of March 2000 and the article on human redundancy by 2035 written by Bill Joy. At the time he was the Major shareholder of Sun Microsystems, a member of SALT and various other important roles including yearly meetings in a Colorado hotspot for the fabulously rich which I think is more important than the Bilderbergs have been since they were outed around the time they held their meetings in a Rothschild Hotel north of Toronto. That was when he wrote this article, if memory serves. Anyone who has not read it is out of touch with reality as I see it. He addressed many things including Green Goo and Drexler, Luddite issues and more. I think his perspective on human soul was very ordinary and personal.

The World Mind and Collective Unconscious such as postulated by Jung is indeed more of the issue and what Futurescape is addressing. Teilhard de Chardin says one perfect thought properly constructed forms a Template which will creatively manifest and alter the world. Bucky Fuller says we can create reality with our soul/mind or spirit. I cover these matters in great depth in my books including Mystical Physicists and Integrating Soul and Science. Bucky covers the observer of the observed very nicely in his analogy about a plane going over a blimp doing TV coverage of a stadium with people in the stands watching players on the sidelines watching the Jumbotron show what just happened etc.

Your question about dumping the contents of the human brain is what Hillis addressed in his desire and belief he would succeed in creating a sentient robot he wanted to dump himself into. Last I searched I found a whole lot was redacted from Joy's original article and it took some time to recapture all of it. Hillis was covered big time in that article. More importantly Ray Kurzweil who is now in scientific control of Google (I liken to Skynet in Terminator.) went on the road saying Joy was too conservative and that it would be long before 2035 when we had these things including the sentient robot like Data in Star Trek.
 
Last edited:
Sharon Weinberger is a top researcher on mind control devices - it was her blog that included my article Mind Machine Interfacing. You should browse for it and see what World-Mysteries has as well. A compendium of great thought on consciousness and the like. What follows seems to have been a year or two after my article.

Allen Barker, PhD Says:

January 24th, 2007 at 11:39 pm

[These are my comments on the article by Sharon Weinberger in the Jan. 14, 2007 Washington Post magazine, titled “Mind Games.” The article is available online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...01399_pf.html]

I would like to thank Ms. Weinberger for researching and writing this article. The article seems reasonably fair, based on the openly available sources describing research into areas like “voice-to-skull” technologies. That might not seem like much, except that up until now even that has been a very rare thing, indeed — especially published in a mainstream paper like the Washington Post.

As the article points out, such technologies have been researched for many years. The advanced forms are *highly* classified. Given this, any victims of nonconsensual experimentation truly have an uphill battle as far as even getting people to acknowledge what is going on.

Even the state of *open* technology in this area is not widely known. Many ordinary citizens who think about the problem for ten minutes, based on naïve views of government and outdated knowledge of 70s-era technology, will tend to dismiss the claims of TIs. Even back in the 70s there was more existing technology than many people are aware of, and consider how much more exists now after all the advances in computers and in other areas. For example, here are a couple of links to some recent articles on open-technology:

http://www.umc.pitt.edu/pittmag/spri.../feature3.html
http://www.umc.pitt.edu/pittmag/fall2005/feature1.html

These two articles involve RFID chips and neural prosthetics, and describe a level of technology that is beyond what people commonly assume is available as the unclassified state of the art.

Most people also tend not to think like “mind controllers.” That is to their credit in most cases, but we all know that some tyrants — both petty and large — covet nothing more than the ability to control other people’s lives. Just because you and I do not think like that, some people *do* think like that — some people will always want to be the next Stalin. That is why eternal vigilance is necessary to maintain liberty even if there is just a potential threat.

In evaluating technologies, then, one has to have some idea about how such technologies might be abused. Various conditioning effects, for example, can be used to influence people using only fairly low levels of technology and surveillance. Influencing operations do not require 100% total control over a person (that is a common straw man argument, in fact). Even if the influencing does not work as planned, it can nonetheless constitute torture to a nonconsensual subject.

Below are a few general comments on parts of the article.

In the article, Gloria Naylor’s book is compared to a 1957 book by Evelyn Waugh in which a character is “gaslighted” with voices to his head as well as “performances” designed to be meaningful only to him. I am not going to comment on Waugh or the character in his book, but this does give me an opportunity to point out part of the long history of mind control technologies and operations.

The year 1957 was during the height of MKULTRA mind control experimentation. A reading of the limited, surviving, redacted financial records gives a picture of how widespread the program was, as well as how it was covertly funded through “cutouts.” It is commonly believed that MKULTRA was mainly about LSD testing, but there were literally hundreds of subprograms which investigated just about every conceivable way to manipulate and influence human beings. This included things like remote polygraphs and electronic influencing and control.

One major goal of MKULTRA was to find ways to discredit people. That much is explicitly documented. One way to discredit a person was to drop them acid in public, but there are many other ways. Certainly dropping acid to unwitting people was tested on nonconsensual citizens, and it is reasonable to assume that many other techniques were similarly tested.

Besides just the capability for “street theater” performances, what voice-to-skull technologies existed back in 1957?

In the late 50s Ewen Cameron was already experimenting with what he called “psychic driving.” He would tape-record interviews with his patients and then play parts of those tapes back to them, repetitively. He used speakers in the ceilings, pillow speakers, and even speakers in football helmets that the patients could not remove in order to constantly bombard his “patients” with voices. He is known to have experimented with mimicking the voices of people familiar to the subjects, as well as with using multiple voices to exploit possible effects of social influencing such as “peer pressure.” This research was funded by the CIA under MKULTRA. So the idea of beaming voices at people for mind control was not new to people in the clandestine world of mind control, even back in the late 50s.

Another late-50s voice-to-skull technology is the tooth implant. This is really rather simple technology, despite some people’s unwarranted skepticism. All it takes is a small radio receiver and a piezoelectric vibrator for bone-conducted audio. There is a patent for such a device which was submitted to the patent office in the late 50s. That particular patent also makes use of facial nerves in addition to bone conduction (which was already prior art at the time).

Experiments were also conducted to try to replicate the radio reception that some people naturally experienced due to certain fillings in their teeth, though what resulted from such investigations is not well-documented. I am *not* saying that a tooth implant was used in any particular case, but that the technology has existed for a very long time. It is a possibility that at least deserves consideration in certain cases, rather than completely dismissing a priori the entire hypothesis that external (or exogenous) voices were ever inflicted on a person.

Back in the 50s hypnosis was a major focus of mind control research. It is a commonly-held belief that people cannot be hypnotized against their will or made to do things under hypnosis which they wouldn’t ordinarily do, but the belief is not true; it is false. Although not *everyone* can be hypnotized against their will or made to do things that they would not ordinarily do, some people are highly susceptible to hypnosis and hence are highly vulnerable. Given that, consider how much more effective hypnosis against a susceptible individual would be if the hypnotist had 24/7 voice contact with that subject in order to constantly reinforce the “training” and to issue commands.

The hypnosis research under programs like BLUEBIRD and MKULTRA in the 50s also made use of technology. There was research into how radio waves of various sorts affected hypnotic susceptibility. There were literally experiments into hypnotizing people and installing posthypnotic commands which could be activated over the telephone. This was not just a Hollywood movie; it is documented to have been tested on actual human subjects. Another area which was researched by the CIA was the use of hidden subliminals in music to enhance hypnosis. This use of auditory subliminals to transmit hidden signals is similar to more modern techniques such as the Russian “acoustic psycho-correction” technology and the Lowery “silent sounds” technique (where a high-frequency audio carrier tone is voice-modulated). The FBI was reported to have investigated using the Russian technology to send the fake “voice of God” to Koresh at Waco, so clearly the FBI knows that such things exist. The Russian technology was acquired in the 90s by a Richmond, Va. company.

The point is that these techniques and technologies have existed in various forms and have been researched and tested for literally decades. The new technologies just open up even more potential for abuses of human rights (as well as any positive applications that the technologies might enable if they were to be used to actually help people). Human beings and governments have long conspired to harass certain individuals; only the methods change over the years. COINTELPRO, for example, has a long history going back many years.

In addition to comparing Naylor’s book with Waugh’s book, the article also compares TIs to people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. I do not want to get too much into that because the TI who was quoted as saying it would keep them “marginalized and discredited” was right. Even just mentioning the subject tends to bring in the space-alien connotations and associated ridicule. One main and obvious difference that seems to somehow get “overlooked” is that mind control operations are real. They have, for example, been investigated by Congress and are known to have been conducted by the CIA et al. In that way the issue of mind control is completely and utterly different from alien abductions.

Interestingly, though, the Air Force is known to have used UFOs as a cover story to distract from investigations of its classified aircraft flights. A similar use of UFOs as purposeful disinformation to discredit investigations into classified mind control experimentation cannot be dismissed. Consider, for example, the documents relating to Project Pandora at the DOD’s FOIA reading room, especially the 469-page Project Pandora Operational Procedure document.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/...ng_list01.html

Now Project Pandora, as the Washington Post article mentions, was an investigation into the use of microwaves to influence human behavior. That is solid, real, and scientific. The document above describes, for example, experiments with monkeys trained to work on tasks and then subjected to performance-degradation due to intentional microwave exposure. It describe studies of sailors exposed to microwaves. It includes results related to the effects of microwaves on EEGs and on heart rates in rabbits. Then guess what follows, in the Project Pandora Operational Procedure document?

What follows is a full-blown Majestic-12/Roswell UFO disinformation story. Yes, this “serious” government FOIA document discusses the supposed finding of space-alien bodies at Roswell. Really. The pages have written on them that they cannot be authenticated as an official government document, but what are they doing there in the first place? They do not have any relevance to microwave research, and the time period is not even the same.

It is curious to note what comes right *after* the Roswell space-alien part of the Pandora document: the transfer of the Pandora Project to the US Army in 1970, and 1977 Congressional inquiry letters into whether Pandora research included areas of “what is popularly known as ‘mind control.’” This clumsy use of Roswell space-alien disinformation is almost breathtaking for its brazenness. One statement that does appear in the Operational Procedure document is the following (from the minutes of a meeting in 1970):

2. Definitive research in this area will also require work with human subjects, and ethical procedures for working with humans may conflict with security needs.

As one final note on alien abductions, I should point out that some of the people claiming to be alien abductees could actually be mind control victims, either purposely deceived with psyops exploiting (and/or inculcating) that belief system or else people who simply misperceived what really happened to them.

Following the comparison of TIs with alien abductees, the Post article proceeds to quote professional psychiatrists. The professional psychiatrists, as expected, assume a priori that all TIs are delusional and therefore are sick and in need of care. This is not a scientific attitude, but then again psychiatry has major components which are strictly political rather than scientific. Since the technology undeniably exists, and since documented mind control operations and mind control experimentation victims undeniably exist, logic demands that at least the *possibility* of exogenous harassment should be considered in any given case. Indeed, people subjected to severe harassment can suffer severe psychological *consequences* — just like PTSD victims and victims of physical torture — but these are the effects (sequelae) of actual harassment. What the DSM manual unscientifically (they admit as much in the DSM) classifies as “schizophrenia” is really a cluster of cases with roughly similar symptoms. It is actually made up of several distinct sub-clusters, corresponding to different causes. One such sub-cluster includes people who truly have been harassed and persecuted — often by people who know quite well what the DSM labels as mental illness.

Of course it is not politically acceptable to admit that people — citizens — truly are harassed and persecuted in the United States. To admit that would require some action to stop it, and would focus attention on the perpetrators of such abuses. But then again, psychiatrists have participated in all of the historically documented mind control programs. And not just any psychiatrists, but the leading psychiatrists of their day. As a profession, psychiatry is in deep denial about its complicity with these abuses. As a profession (a supposed “healing” profession) it will not face up to even its documented involvement in mind control research. It will not acknowledge the documented victims of such programs and try to heal the damage that it helped to inflict on them. So, in this case, the profession of psychiatry has a serious conflict of interest.

In ending this commentary, I would like to again thank Ms. Weinberger for her relatively fair article on the TIs and their plight. I hope that the article will spur serious investigations into the allegations of TIs and will help lead to greatly increased oversight of the black-budget, special access programs where such technologies and techniques are being developed and researched.
 
Baird, your posts cover a range of subjects, and include wide-ranging references and allusions, so it's difficult to respond to all of what you say even in a single post in a comprehensive way. That's not a criticism of you but, rather, an excuse for me in being unable to get the whole picture behind your posts. I do, however, have a question about this section of the above post:

"Interestingly, though, the Air Force is known to have used UFOs as a cover story to distract from investigations of its classified aircraft flights. A similar use of UFOs as purposeful disinformation to discredit investigations into classified mind control experimentation cannot be dismissed. Consider, for example, the documents relating to Project Pandora at the DOD’s FOIA reading room, especially the 469-page Project Pandora Operational Procedure document.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/...ng_list01.html

Now Project Pandora, as the Washington Post article mentions, was an investigation into the use of microwaves to influence human behavior. That is solid, real, and scientific. The document above describes, for example, experiments with monkeys trained to work on tasks and then subjected to performance-degradation due to intentional microwave exposure. It describe studies of sailors exposed to microwaves. It includes results related to the effects of microwaves on EEGs and on heart rates in rabbits. Then guess what follows, in the Project Pandora Operational Procedure document?

What follows is a full-blown Majestic-12/Roswell UFO disinformation story. Yes, this “serious” government FOIA document discusses the supposed finding of space-alien bodies at Roswell. Really. The pages have written on them that they cannot be authenticated as an official government document, but what are they doing there in the first place? They do not have any relevance to microwave research, and the time period is not even the same
.


It is curious to note what comes right *after* the Roswell space-alien part of the Pandora document: the transfer of the Pandora Project to the US Army in 1970, and 1977 Congressional inquiry letters into whether Pandora research included areas of “what is popularly known as ‘mind control.’” This clumsy use of Roswell space-alien disinformation is almost breathtaking for its brazenness. One statement that does appear in the Operational Procedure document is the following (from the minutes of a meeting in 1970):

2. Definitive research in this area will also require work with human subjects, and ethical procedures for working with humans may conflict with security needs. . . . ."


This statement -- "The pages have written on them that they cannot be authenticated as an official government document, but what are they doing there in the first place? -- raises the question of the authorship of that 469-page document. What agency or agencies contributed to it, and was it published all at once or in segments? If the latter, who has collected the segments and put the whole document up online? I don't have time to read all of this document but would be willing to read the pages you're referring to if you'll identify them. I think there might be several different ways to interpret why and/or how the section referring to Roswell shows up where it does, but we'd have to know more about the document as a whole and its sources to get to that point.
 
Last edited:
TI is Targeted Individual such as I say on threads about Whitley Strieber - I think he was. I have been inside on a few fronts and my older brother thinks I am still on the radar.
 
@Soupie, are you familiar with the work of Arnold Trehub {quoted in a post above on this page}? He seems to have been an early contributor to cognitive neuroscience but to have revised his thinking in recent years. Here is a brief but ramifying commentary of his that I think will interest you in particular:

Two arguments for a pre-reflective core self: Commentary on Praetorius (2009)
Consciousness and Cognition 18 (2009) 339–340
Arnold Trehub
Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA

Abstract: Contra Praetorius (2009), I present two brief arguments which support the existence within the human brain of a pre-reflective core self.

Extract:

". . . The concepts of a reflective self (Praetorius, 2009) or a phenomenal self-model (Metzinger, 2003) are well founded ideas with which I agree, but these do not preclude the existence of a pre-reflective core self—indeed, they depend on the prior existence of just such an entity. What is a reflective self or a phenomenal self-model but a characterization of a self. How could one characterize a self without having a pre-existing/pre-reflective self (a core self) as the subject of characterization? It is evident that an innate core self is a necessary precondition for the brain’s continuing construction of a reflective self during personal maturation.

The challenge for those who deny the biological existence of an innate core self is to show how belief can be individuated wholly on the basis of linguistic expression, and how the first use of ‘‘I” can have any meaning in reference to oneself without a pre-existing referent that constitutes a unitary self."


http://people.umass.edu/trehub/core_self.pdf
 
Last edited:
Dear Constance

Again. That is the work of Dr. Barber I am quoting from a blog done by the Washington Post who also ran my article on Mind Machine Interfacing. I recommend you or any party interested in all the varied subjects here take a look at the whole first page that comes up when you look up that article as I said.

As it happens I have done a lot more work on the field of all these black ops MK Ultra and human experimentation issues. There is no area of social concern that has not been affected. We were told that no Nazi scientists would be brought to America by Truman after the war. A Marine pilot who became my boss/partner in Indianapolis was training at Randolph AFB near San Antonio when they were brought in by the hundreds. Strughold (Green) was a fomenter or planner of most of these Projects. The Brits and Russians competed for the same scientists. Germany was actually the only nation in the world which had laws against human experimentation until Nuremburg. My father was with Canada's Judge Advocate General at Nuremburg after the war. He ranked number two in the world as regards to typing and could do 200 words per minute with three carbon copies - accurately for hours. It made him invaluable with the Black Market. He also spoke at the house or castle of the incoming King of Belgium on the theme of Socialism or Communism. His father was a leader in the Union Movement which became a pawn of Stalinism. Stalinism is actually nothing like Communism but is created by American interests including Armand Hammer - a real bad act.

At Nuremburg the truth was not told, and you can see the recent movie re-make with the top German saying so to the top prosecutor after sentencing when they met in his cell. The truth is - Germany was a secret society game supported by International financiers including Brown Bros Harriman who employed Prescott, using 99 Lodge techniques like Bonesmen. I got some of this from insiders of the Beacon Hill Mob who are way above the Bushes and who called the Bushes 'flunkies'. I may already have posted The Most Important Man of the 20th Century here. It covers a lot more mind control techniques.

There are a thousand more integrations for you. Check out the Tuskegee Experiment or Mt. Sinai and all so many eugenics programs backed in America before being taken to Germany. That will lead you past Bush to Harriman and his Jupiter Island Manchurian Candidate program that brought us Shrub. It includes a judgement of the US Courts against Prescott Bush in Trading with the Enemy. So you can imagine if George and Barbara allow their own children to be experimented upon in advanced inculcation and brainwashing what they do for (against) you. GWB was a Director of Lilly Corp who lied about Prozac tests. He was a Director, alongside the Bin Ladins of Carlyle Corp when Shrub ferreted them out of the country after 9-11. GWB was a key operative in drug running and the assassination of JFK. Skull and Bones does indeed include the Obscene Ritual where human brain contents are eaten fresh as can be. I am no Icke fool - I know these rituals and have done first hand investigation and battle.
 
Here is the paper by N. Praetorius to which Trehub responds in the above-linked commentary:

The phenomenological underpinning of the notion of a minimal core self:
A psychological perspective
Nini Praetorius
Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Oster Farimagsgade 5A, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark

Published in the same issue of Consciousness and Cognition in which Trehub's response was published.

http://praetorius.psy.ku.dk/Self.pdf
 
He hem!! It's a si-fiction movie! And not wishing to give anything away, the AI part is incidental to the film. The film is actually about the relation of power to loneliness imo.

In America, it's A-hem .... ;-) You have to read both posts I linked - the invective and then the response on consciousentities to the invective ...

It's always incidental in a good film - because we are interested in the human aspects - incidentally another such film is Frank and Robot ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top