Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs

Welcome to share these information with all your connections.

God gave mankind freedom and liberty. God never controlled mankind’s minds. Only Satan and his supporters wanted to control mankind’s minds. Nazis were the first to develop the mind control weapons. With the help of Satan, they even wanted to conquer the whole world. Even though the world had destroyed Nazis, People had not been able to prevent the proliferation of mind control weapons, and prevent such weapons from falling into the hands of followers of Dragon and Beasts. More followers of Dragon and Beast started to research and develop mind control weapons. The Dragon, Beasts and their followers wanted to control their followers and also used their mind control weapons to abuse and torture God’s people secretly. 

1. Mind Control technologies.

Mind control technologies are weapons which use drugs, electronic microchip implants, nanotechnologies, microwaves and /or electromagnetic waves to subvert an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making by attacking the brain and nervous system.


2. The development of mind control methods and technologies has a long history.

Nazi researchers used concentration camp inmates to test a cocaine-based "wonder drug" they hoped would enhance the performance of German troops.  )


There is an overwhelming body of evidence that confirms the existence of Mk-ultra, America's Central Intelligence Agency mind control project.

( )


Many Researchers, using nanotechnologies have developed implantable electronic chips that establish new nerve connections in the parts of the brain that control movement or even alter emotion and thought.

( )


In 2002, the Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a technology: Nonleghal 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 Voice to Skull is use as an electronic scarecrow to frighten birds in the vicinity of airports. Many mind control victims also have claimed to be harassed by Voice to Skull technologies.

( )


It is possible nowadays to read someone's mind by remotely measuring their brain activity, researchers have shown. This technique can even extract information from individuals that they are unaware of themselves.

( )


It is sometimes hard for victims to find evidence of microwave or electromagnetic mind control technology.  However, some news articles are starting to report the development of government mind control weapons.

go to replies of this discussion to read more articles introduce electromagnetic/microwave mind control technologies  )

Microwave or electromagnetic mind control technology, even can attack you through satellites; or through TV , Mobile transmission Towers

( )


Patents also indicate the existence of mind control technologies.

( )


Recently, scientists also found that fungi could control ant's brain, will fungi become new mind control weapons in the future?

3. Electromagnetic Weapons

We only list few websites here for you easily to read some information about Electromagnetic weapons. More information about Electromagnetic weapons can be searched from the Internet easily.
Light, microwaves, x-rays, and TV and radio transmissions are all kinds of Electromagnetic waves.

4.  Mind Control News articles
5.  Scientific Paper of Electromagnetic weapons

US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights
By Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton
As Study of the History of US Intelligence Community Human Rights
Violations and Continuing Research in Electromagnetic Weapons
Completed December 2006
Sonoma State University
Project Censored
Media Freedom Foundation file)

Electromagnetic Aspect of Mind Control-A Scientific Analysis
by Vlad N. Binhi, General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

US Government Accidentally Releases Electromagnetic Mind Control Documents In FOIA Request 


Controlling the Human Mind : The Technologies of Political Control or Tools for Peak Performance By Dr. Nick Begich
6. Videos of More information about Mind control weapons
Mind control Video
discovery channel
Electronic Mind Control Pt 1
Electronic Mind Control Pt 2
Electronic Mind Control Pt 3

CNN: Electromagnetic Mind Control Weapons (2 of 2)
CNN: Electromagnetic Mind Control Weapons (1 of 2)
Science Channel Admits Microwaves Used in Mind Control

Science Channel Admits Microwaves Used in Mind Control    

The Report can be viewed here at the "Brain Invaders" Episode.  This Synthetic Telepathy Technology which is currently being used to torture aproximately 500,000 Targeted Individuals will be turned on the entire population.   

NASA scientist, Dr. Fred Bell and Inventor of StarWars Death Ray and Army Scientist on the same Program - John Hutchison Reveal the Microwave Directed Energy that is being used by the US Government to Murder Targeted Individuals.  Dr. Fred Bell was dead 48 hours after this interview with Jesse Ventura  

Agent  Barrie Trower of Great Britain's Royal Navy Confirms the Technology is being used to torture people by the US Government.  If this doesn't play it can be played here.   

Barrie Trower again interviewed on the stealth torture capabilities being done by the US Government and other Government upon innocent Targeted Individuals in America and around the world.   If this doesn't play it can be played here on side panel embedded.

more videos:
7.  diagnosis of schizophrenia and Mind control Weapons symptoms

Carole Smith is a member of The College of Psychoanalysts, and an accredited member of the United Kingdom Register of Psychotherapists. She trained at the Institute of Psychotherapy and Social Studies, and currently serves on their Ethics Committee.

Moss David Posner, M.D. is a physician currently in practice in the California Department of Corrections. His article is about how to proof Mind Control Weapons and Directed Energy Weapons are using to torture and harass innocent civilians.
How to Control Americans—thought control mind control, disinformation and other naughty things-concl

Auditory hallucinations: a comparison between patients and nonpatients
8.  Laws and Supporting letters
Laws against mind control and electromagnetic weapons

A letter from Rep. Jim Guest

Lynn A Surgalla Former Vice-president of United States Psychotronics Association has written a letter to the court.


9. The Facts and Evidences:

I was controlled by remote Voice to Skull technologies and Mind Control technologies, and I was brought inside US Embassy in Hong Kong

Book Twelve Years in the Grave - Mind Control with Electromagnetic Spectrums, the Invisible Modern Concentration Camp”, authored by Soleilmavis Liu, provides the sound facts and evidence about the secret abuse and torture with remote voice-to-skull and electromagnetic mind control technologies.

An anonymous Survey for Mind Control Victims (result on 19 Dec 2009)

10. How can Mind Control Weapons and Electromagnetic weapons torture and harass Human Beings?

We can “see” by our eyes; we can “hear” by our ears; we can “smell” by our nose; we can “feel” by our skin. Sense organs receive many information everyday.

Electromagnetic weapons can directly stimulate our neurons to let us “see” “hear” “smell” or “feel” by our brain. Victims also feel that information is “transferring” to their brain.

I am not talking about the sounds around us, but the radio signal itself. We don't "hear" that signal as sounds or voices around us, but as sounds generated inside our heads by the signal.

They also can stimulate our neurons to cut off the connection between neurons and visual sense system; sense of hearing system; sense of smell system; or sense of feeling system, and let us can not “see’; can not “hear”; can not smell” or even can not “feel” pain.

If the electromagnetic weapon’s frequencies are same with our brainwaves frequencies, and both frequencies creative resonance, the electromagnetic weapons can affect our human activities.

Electromagnetic waves can reach everyone through satellite, Radio, TV or Mobile phone signal towers. (See this website to learn some knowledge of satellite surveillance)

Please go to LAST PAGE OF "Replies to this Discussion" to read NEWEST articles

Views: 25732

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

U.N. Investigates Electromagnetic Terrorism
By David Hambling December 02, 2008 | 8:00:00 AM
The health effects of electromagnetic fields are hugely controversial, whether it's power lines being linked to leukemiaor the impact of mobile phone radiation on your brain. Which makes it particularly surprising that electromagnetic (EM) radiation is being considered as a possible terrorist weapon. A UNESCO Seminar last month considered the "Potential Threat as a Terrorism Agent" of EM fields:

The most obvious danger is use of electromagnetic pulses to disrupt communication. However EMF also pose direct threats to human healththrough mechanisms that are poorly understood. These involve different physical and chemical factors, as well as multiple effects on biological systems including humans. [my emphasis]

This seems a little unlikely. There's little agreement on the health risk of EM fields. So they would appear to be improbable terrorist weapons. Blowing up airliners is one thing; causing a fractional incidence in the rate of cancer over a period of months lacks the immediacy and obvious impact associated with terrorist actions.

I contacted professor Sinerik N. Ayrapetyan, who organized the conference, to find out more. Ayraptyan was polite and helpful, but stressed that his expertise lies in the molecular and cellular effects of microwaves on organisms. He would not comment on clinical studies, much less on large-scale applications like terrorist use.

It seems that the title of the conference was changed at the last minute to "Electromagnetic Fields: Mechanisms of Action And Health Effect," with no mention of terrorism. Ayraptyan explained that this was because the World Health Organization was one the main sponsor and requested a shift to focus on health effects, because "WHO is not a military organization."

However, scanning the agenda, there are still some signs of a military presence. The logo of the U.S. Office of Naval Research Global figures prominently. And it was interesting to note the presence of Andrei Pakhomov, a familiar name in nonlethal weapon circles who carried out some of the basic research behind the Active Denial System — the U.S. military's "pain ray."

Pentagon interest in the effects of radio waves and microwaves goes way back. A recent article by John McMurtrey — who has amassed an impressive collection of papers on this topic -– looks at declassified papers on the aptly named Project Bizarre. This was part of Project Pandora, which was started after the discovery in 1953 that the Russians were irradiating the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with low-power microwaves. Nobody knew what the potential health effects of this sort of low-level exposure were, but there was a suspicion that the Russians did not mean well.

The microwaves may have been to jam U.S. monitoring equipment; they may have been a way of remotely powering Russian bugs within the embassy; or they may have had a more sinister purpose. Project Bizarre involved the controlled irradiation of Rhesus monkeys with microwaves to determine whether it had any effect on their behavior. The work was carried out by Dr. J. C. Sharp and H. M. Grove.

The monkeys were trained to get food by pushing a lever in response to lights and audible tones.

One tone frequency signaled a time out period where any response to gain food within ten minutes reset another 10 minute delay requiring non-response. When a red light came on food was available by lever pressing where each subsequent food pellet required a geometric increased number of lever responses. Subsequently another time out period was tone signaled, where on successful non-response, a different tone frequency signaled food availability only by the 50 second delayed response previously discussed.

Project Bizarre found that microwave exposure seemed to disrupt the monkey's perception of time, causing them to misjudge intervals and perform badly compared to monkeys that had not been radiated. Although these results have not been confirmed — and this topic remains controversial — McMurtrey has tracked down other studies at assorted military laboratories (mainly on rats) with similar results.

"Microwave exposure inter-response time and sequential task performance reports herein totaled 10 studies, fully half of which originated from military laboratories who solely conducted the pulsed investigations showing the greatest performance deterioration," he writes.

McMurtrey suggests that the Russians were essentially trying to drive embassy staff mad and that the effects of the radiation might produce symptoms similar to schizophrenia. The Moscow embassy wasgiven electromagnetic protection in 1976, including wire-mesh "mosquito screens" on the windows.

It remains to be seen whether terrorists will try the electromagnetic approach. I suspect the White House already has quite good EM shielding (to block electronic eavesdropping rather than external zapping). And with all the other threats to worry about, this one surely does seem fairly remote for the time being.

But still ... "whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
Oct 29, 2008 01:55 PM in

U.S. and Soviet spooks studied paranormal powers to find a Cold War advantage
Larry Greenemeier

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is well known for pushing the boundaries of science and technology in search of ways to give the U.S. military an edge—robotic pack animals, self-navigating vehicles and plant-based jet fuel, to name a few. Less well known is the agency's Cold War-era investigation into how paranormal phenomena like extrasensory perception might be used by the U.S. to get a leg up on the former Soviet Union and, perhaps more importantly, by the USSR against the United States.

Working with Washington, D.C., think tank RAND Corporation, DARPA determined that paranormal research by the Soviets focused on physical science, engineering and quantifiable results, whereas their U.S. counterparts tended to be psychologists looking instead to explore the human mind. The bottom line, according to a 1973 DARPA-commissioned study entitled "Paranormal Phenomena": "the U.S. has failed to significantly advance our understanding of paranormal phenomena."

As Halloween approaches, the report serves as a reminder of our fascination with paranormal forces (for more on this, visit's "Science of the Occult" in-depth report). The authors were worried that the Soviets might win the race to use the supernatural to its advantage much as they had threatened to win the space race decades earlier when they launchedSputnik. "If paranormal phenomena exist," RAND analysts P. T. Van Dyke and Mario L. Juncosa concluded, "the thrust of Soviet research appears more likely to lead to explanation, control and application than [does] U.S. research."

The authors acknowledge that the study was limited, because it was based on but a sampling of works available at the time. Among them: a decade of abstracts from the parapsychology section of Psychological Abstracts, a print version of the PsycINFO abstract database of psychological literature. They knew even less about Soviet efforts, they admitted, noting that their conclusions on that front were based on a "somewhat impressionistic" sample and "some not always reliable and frequently imprecise reports of Western visitors to the Soviet Union ."

Soviet research on telepathy dates from the early 1920s when a program was established at the Institute for Brain Research at Leningrad State University. The Soviets appear to have been fascinated with telepathy, which they called "biological communication," as a ship-to-shore way of communicating with submarines without using electronic equipment. They also considered training their cosmonauts to develop and use precognitive abilities to "foresee and to avoid accidents in space."

It seems the Soviets also were quite taken with the possibility of psychokinesis (using mental imagery to move objects) as a way of "disrupting the electrical systems associated with an ICBM's [intercontinental ballistic missile] guidance program."

The Soviets were more inclined than American scientists to believe that paranormal phenomena might be the result of "bioenergetics," or the energy given off by the metabolic processes of living things. This theory stated that people exuded "bioplasma," (a theoretical energy field) that, under certain conditions, was capable of emitting charged coherent radiation beyond the body surface in the form of electrons and possibly protons.

Although the Soviets did not reach a consensus on the existence of bioplasma, RAND concluded, "the very pursuit of this theory indicates that Soviet parapsychologists were attempting to explain alleged paranormal phenomena with a greater degree of specificity than their Western counterparts."
(Copyright: Duncan Walker and RAND Corp.)
UNESCO Seminar: “Electromagnetic Fields: Mechanisms Of Action And Potential Threat As A Terrorism Agent”
There is more and more use of electricity and RF communication frequencies in both civilian life and for military purposes. The clarification of cellular and molecular mechanisms of their biological effects is extremely important in order to rationally evaluate their harmful effects from the point of public health. Moreover, the possibility to using EMF-induced modulations makes EMF potentially a powerful instrument for environmental terror. The most obvious danger is use of electromagnetic pulses to disrupt communication. However EMF also pose direct threats to human health through mechanisms that are poorly understood. These involve different physical and chemical factors, as well as multiple effects on biological systems including humans. Therefore, this problem is an appropriate and important subject for consideration under the Environmental Antiterrorism Program.
The primary goal of the proposed Workshop is to conduct a multidisciplinary discussion of the data obtained by different laboratories on the mechanisms whereby EMF of various frequencies alter function of physical and biological systems, what are the public health implications of these actions, and what are the dangers and potential of use of EMF as a terrorist weapon.

Contact Info : Prof. Sinerik Ayrapetyan
Head of Org. Committee President UNESCO Chair-Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center 31 Acharian St., Yerevan, 0040, Armenia Tel: (374 10) 624170/612461 Fax: (374 10) 624170
Email :
Scientific American Mind - November 12, 2008

Putting Thoughts into Action: Implants Tap the Thinking Brain
Researchers are decoding the brain to give a voice and a hand to the paralyzed—and to learn how it controls our movements
By Alan S. Brown
Eight years ago, when Erik Ramsey was 16, a car accident triggered a brain stem stroke that left him paralyzed. Though fully conscious, Ramsey was completely paralyzed, essentially “locked in,” unable to move or talk. He could communicate only by moving his eyes up or down, thereby answering questions with a yes or a no.

Ramsey’s doctors recommended sending him to a nursing facility. Instead his parents brought him home. In 2004 they met neurologist Philip R. Kennedy, chief scientist at Neural Signals in Duluth, Ga. He offered Ramsey the chance to take part in an unusual experiment. Surgeons would implant a high-tech device called a neural prosthesis into Ramsey’s brain, enabling him to communicate his thoughts to a computer that would translate them into spoken words.

Today Ramsey sports a small metal electrode in his brain. Its thin wires penetrate a fraction of an inch into his motor cortex, the part of the brain that controls movement, including the motion of his vocal muscles. When Ramsey thinks of saying a sound, the implant captures the electrical firing of nearby neurons and transmits their impulses to a computer, which decodes them and produces the sounds. So far Ramsey can only say a few simple vowels, but Kennedy believes that he will recover his full range of speech by 2010.

Ramsey’s neural prosthesis ranks among the most sophisticated implanted devices that translate thoughts into actions. Such systems listen to the brain’s instructions for movement—even when actual movement is no longer possible—and decode the signals for use in operating a computer or moving a robot. The technology needed for such implants, including powerful microprocessors, improved filters and longer-lasting batteries, has advanced rapidly in the past few years. Funding for such projects has also grown. The U.S. Department of Defense, for example, sponsors research in prosthetics for wounded war veterans.

Only nine people, Ramsey included, have received brain-implanted prostheses. In the past, patients have used them to spell words on a computer, pilot a wheelchair or flex a mechanical hand. Monkeys have employed them to perform more complex tasks such as maneuvering mechanical arms to grab food or controlling a walking robot on a treadmill [see “Chips in Your Head,” by Frank W. Ohl and Henning Scheich; Scientific American Mind, April/May 2007]. Other experimental brain-computer interfaces read the brain’s output noninvasively, through electrodes attached to the human scalp [see “Thinking Out Loud,” by Nicola Neumann and Niels Birbaumer; Scientific American Mind, December 2004].

The technology promises to give thousands of victims of stroke, spinal cord injury and paralyzing illnesses the ability to, say, talk with a friend, flip through television channels or transport themselves by driving their own wheelchair. One day implants may enable paralyzed people to move robotic arms or even bypass damaged parts of the nervous system to reanimate unresponsive limbs. In the meantime, the quest to develop implanted neural prostheses is bringing with it revelations about how the brain manages motion and how it can remodel itself so that only a few neurons are needed to direct action through an implant.

Scientists have known for more than 220 years that electricity somehow controls muscle movement. In 1783 Italian physician Luigi Galvani, a contemporary of Benjamin Franklin, discovered that electric currents caused a severed pair of frog legs to twitch. By the 1860s German military doctors had discovered that small electric currents applied to the brain could cause certain muscles to contract. Over the following decades, dedicated researchers mapped which regions of the motor cortex control which groups of muscles in the body. But to discover how the brain actually orchestrates movement, scientists had to find a way to eavesdrop on the neural signals in the motor cortex while animals were awake and moving.

This task proved problematic until investigators figured out how to stably affix an electrode, a tiny sliver of conductive wire, to a neuron so they could register its weak, milliseconds-long pulses. When animals move, their brains shift slightly within their skulls, and the motions can rip an electrode from its anchor in the brain. In the late 1950s neurologists found that flooding the space between the skull and the brain with inert wax or neutral oil buffered the brain the way Styrofoam peanuts keep a box from moving inside a larger package. The buffer prevented a brain from shaking off its implant.

Despite this fix, no one could make sense at first of the chatter of individual neurons in the motor cortex. Researchers expected a one-to-one correspondence between the neurons that fired and the muscles that contracted during movements. But when they looked at individual neurons, they found the neurons would fire when a monkey moved its arm forward or backward or even when it kept the arm still.

In the late 1970s neurologist Apostolos Georgopoulos, now at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the University of Minnesota, had a brainstorm. The spinal cord exerts direct control over muscles, Georgopoulos realized. Thus, he supposed that the motor cortex might be directing movement at a somewhat higher level, specifying a trajectory rather than the muscles and joints needed to accomplish a movement.

To test his idea, Georgopoulos developed something called the center-out task, in which monkeys learn to move a joystick toward one of six targets arrayed in a semicircle. “Until then, all the research designs focused on very simple movements—forward, stop, back,” he explains. “In our experiment, the monkey was changing the position of its shoulder, elbow and wrist simultaneously.”

No one had looked at such complex motions before—or analyzed the data the way Georgo poulos and his colleagues did. Instead of trying to correlate the firing of particular neurons with the contractions of certain muscles, he averaged the responses of small groups of neurons over thousands of experiments. From that average, he saw through the noise that neurons produce when they direct motion, engage in other tasks or just fire spuriously. Although individual neurons fired with every movement, each neuron had a preferred direction: when the monkey moved the joystick that way, its firing frequency peaked. Neighboring neurons with similar preferred directions also became more excited. The closer a monkey’s arm moved to a neuron’s preferred direction, the more rapidly it fired; the farther away the arm moved, the more slowly it fired.

“It’s a sort of democracy,” Georgopoulos explains. “A given cell will keep voting on the direction of the movement, whether it’s in the majority or the minority, but the majority always rules. And the majority vote is an excellent predictor of direction.” In this way, the motor cortex sets a strategy for a movement. It calculates the direction (and, as Georgopoulos and others later found, the acceleration) needed for the hand to reach a target. It then sends the information to the spinal cord, which implements that strategy by operating muscles. Those more general commands from the brain, researchers believed, might indeed be useful for controlling external devices.

Making a Move
But progress on developing a neural prosthesis that could translate thoughts into action was slow. At first the electrodes were unreliable, and the electrical connections were sometimes finicky. The neurons themselves would also act unpredictably.

“Brain cells don’t behave the same way every time. Perhaps the cells are changing, or maybe the patient is tense or tired,” says Brown University neuroscientist John Donoghue, the second scientist after Kennedy to develop a neural prosthesis for human implantation.

Researchers also despaired at the problem of gleaning useful information from a relatively small number of neurons. “Usually the brain uses millions of neurons to perform a motor task. Now we’re asking people with prostheses attached to maybe 50 neurons to do the same thing,” Donoghue says. Yet those few neurons proved surprisingly capable.

Implant pioneer Eberhard Fetz, a biophysicist at the University of Washington, recalls experiments conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which a monkey learned to use an implant to move the dial on an electrical meter to receive a drop of applesauce. Fetz and his team did not train the monkey, but it quickly learned to control the needle by trial and error, just by thinking. “He learned that there was something he could do to drive the meter to the right and trigger the feeder,” Fetz recalls. “Once he got the hang of it, he could do it every time.”

Neuroscientists believe that once the monkey chanced on a successful pattern of neural impulses, continued successes triggered the rewiring of its brain to create a faster and more efficient mechanism for repeating that pattern. This process also underpins other types of motor learning, such as that required to manipulate a fork or chopsticks. That is, the monkey learned to work the dial as if it were an extension of the monkey’s own body—which, in many ways, it was.

The ability of the brain to rewire itself on the fly is called plasticity. Investigators see examples of it all the time. In 2002 neurobiologist Andrew Schwartz of the University of Pittsburgh and his colleagues reported brain plasticity in a monkey that was trained to hit a target in a 3-D virtual-reality game using a ball that it controlled with its thoughts. Once the monkey learned to hit the target every time, Schwartz altered the settings so that the ball veered a few degrees to the right. Within about five minutes the monkey had adapted to the adjustment and began hitting the target again. “The only way the monkey could correct the error was by changing the firing of the neurons that we were recording,” Schwartz explains.

This past June, Schwartz’s team reported teaching a monkey to manipulate a gripper
on a hinged double-jointed robotic arm to lift food off a hook. Ordinarily the brain uses millions of neurons to control such a multipart, intricate movement. The monkey learned to retrieve the food, at least some of the time, with an implant that read the signals from only a few dozen neurons.

Connecting with People
With time, researchers parlayed their monkey studies into pilot trials with paralyzed people. Early implants generally enabled patients to translate their thoughts into simple actions, such as moving a computer cursor in one or two dimensions rather than using the complex, three-dimensional actions of a robotic arm.

In 1996, for example, a group of surgeons working under Kennedy inserted the first neural prosthesis into the brain of a paralyzed former teacher and artist in the terminal stages of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a progressive paralysis also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. In the two months after the surgery, the woman learned to use it to turn on and off lights on a computer screen. A few years later a second patient, a locked-in 53-year-old former drywall contractor named Johnny Ray, learned to use the implant to move a cursor to pick out computer icons, spell words and generate musical tones.

Since then, seven more patients have received implants. With each one, the technology became more versatile and reliable. The surgical procedures, too, have come a long way since experimenters had to stabilize electrodes with wax. Kennedy, for example, has developed a cone-shaped electrode that contains chemicals to encourage neuron growth. Surgeons make a small hole in the skull above the ear and over the motor cortex and secure the electrode to the bone. When nearby neurons grow into the cone, they begin transmitting electrical signals to the electrode, which transmits them to a wireless receiver attached to the top of the head.

Researchers have also tried to improve the fidelity of the signals they receive by tapping more neurons. Donoghue and his colleagues developed an electrode array capable of receiving signals from 96 individual neurons. In 2004 neurosurgeons implanted it into the brain of 24-year-old Matthew Nagle of Weymouth, Mass., who was paralyzed when he intervened in a fight and was knifed through the spinal cord. Within only minutes of calibrating the prosthesis, Nagle could move a cursor on a computer. Over the next three years, before he died from an unrelated infection, he learned to control a television, check e-mail, and open and close an artificial hand. He made some rudimentary attempts to draw, which requires fine-motor control. His first attempt to sketch a circle wandered all over the screen, his second try led to more pronounced curves and his third produced an oval.

As investigators accumulate experience with human prostheses, they have raised their sights. Donoghue, for example, is teaming up with biomedical engineer Hunter Peckham of Case Western Reserve University, who has developed an electrical device that stimulates nerves or muscles to enable some movement after a partial or lower-level spinal cord injury. But Peckham’s system alone allows only simple, preprogrammed motions, such as boosting a person from a wheelchair to a walker. By linking a neural prosthesis to the device, however, Donoghue and Peckham hope to create a system that gives users greater flexibility. “Our goal is that within five years we will have a brain-controlled system that lets a tetraplegic take a glass of water, lift it and bring it to the mouth,” Donoghue says.

Fetz hopes to eventually connect a brain prosthesis directly to the spinal cord to flexibly reanimate nerves and muscles after spinal cord injuries. Such a device would tap the cord’s natural ability to coordinate groups of muscles.

Neurologist Richard A. Andersen of the California Institute of Technology is taking a different tack. Instead of decoding the motor cortex, he wants to capture the brain’s intentions before they become motor commands. Andersen believes those commands originate in the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), an area near the top of the back of the head that transforms sensory stimuli into a movement blueprint. Unlike the motor cortex, which estimates the trajectory an arm must take to reach a target, neurons in the PPC produce “goal” signals that specify the target itself. Recently Andersen and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and McGill University showed that the PPC also predicts and adjusts for changes in a target’s motion.

The PPC’s focus on the goal makes tapping it potentially more efficient than reading a brain area that plots trajectories, Andersen says. A prosthesis implanted in the PPC might enable a patient to rapidly pick out letters on a screen to spell out words—just as fast-touch typists do on a keyboard. Because of its flexibility, such a prosthesis might let a user operate a wider range of devices than a motor cortex implant designed to control specific movements would. Andersen is hoping to embed the appropriate electronics into a person’s parietal cortex within a year or two.

Finding a Voice
Kennedy’s speech prosthesis arguably poses the greatest challenge yet because he had almost no experimental data on which to base its operation. After all, monkeys do not speak, and Ramsey is the first person to receive an implant to produce speech. This means that Kennedy must find a way to separate speech signals from neural noise without animal research to guide him.

Ramsey’s implant connects with about 50 neurons in the part of his motor cortex that translates how he thinks a syllable should sound into the muscle commands to make the syllable. The implant captures the signals that control the coordinated motion of his mouth, lips and tongue to form sounds.

The link between Ramsey’s neural implant and speech is a sophisticated computer program called Directions into Velocities of Articulators (DIVA), developed by Frank H. Guenther, a cognitive neuroscientist at Boston University. DIVA is a mathematical description of how the brain controls speech, parsing the process into eight parts that represent different speech functions in the brain. Mathematical formulas define neural firing rates in each area and neuronal connections among areas. DIVA made it possible to build a neural decoder that can decipher the speech signals amid the neural noise coming out of Ramsey’s implant. The decoder translates the speech signals into sound data that it sends to a speech synthesizer, which generates human sounds.

Guenther built DIVA by scouring the research literature on the brain’s speech centers. His group continually refines the program through additional experiments. “If we want to investigate how the brain corrects speech, we’ll perturb a volunteer’s speech. They may say ‘bet,’ but they hear ‘bit.’ Our model might predict that four parts of the brain should light up when they hear the perturbed sound, and we’ll see how that compares with what happens on a [brain] image. If the image lights up in five places, then we update the model to reflect this new information.”

DIVA learns to speak from experience. Initially DIVA babbles like a human infant. As it “listens” to the resulting sounds and “senses” the position of its virtual muscles, it uses the feedback to modify its mathematical relationships to speak more clearly. “Then comes the imitation stage,” Guenther says. “We have a human say something, and the model tries to reproduce it. It will be wrong at first, but DIVA will use feedback to keep getting it closer. It usually takes about five or six attempts to get it right.”

Similarly, the neural decoder based on DIVA does not accurately translate Ramsey’s initial attempts to speak, in part because the computer program receives input from just a tiny fraction of the millions of neurons that are involved in speech. The program and Ramsey, however, get better with practice. Guenther starts this learning process by playing a sequence of vowel sounds on a computer—vowels are easier to pronounce than consonants—and Ramsey sings along in his mind. Ramsey and the decoder botched their first five attempts at each of the first three vowels. But then Ramsey adjusted his brain signals based on the feedback from the synthetic sounds the computer produced, and on the next five, he got three or more right.

“Ramsey was able to quickly improve his performance by adjusting the brain signals that were sent to the synthesis system,” Guenther recalls. “Most of this learning is subconscious motor learning, like learning to shoot baskets or whistle or ride a bike, rather than requiring a conscious attempt to change the way one communicates.” It is slow, arduous work. Ramsey has only enough energy for two or three weekly sessions that usually last no more than an hour or two.

Eventually Kennedy hopes to implant more electrodes in different parts of the brain’s speech motor region to provide richer neural input for the speech program. “We’d like to have several electrodes spread out over areas that control the tongue, mouth, jaw and facial muscles. If we had more implants, that would give us even better resolution.”

From such endeavors, the neurologist hopes to change the lives of tens of thousands of people. Those who are now entombed within their own bodies will once again be able to communicate and connect with friends, caretakers and family. People who cannot move from room to room or change a television on their own will find a new freedom. Wounded warriors returning from battle may receive artificial limbs that respond to their unspoken commands.

Erik Ramsey is just the beginning.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Putting Thoughts into Action".
Medtronics, implants ARGUS Mvh

I never realised that silver and aluminium had different colors until I got my new eyes. Now I can see that silver has just as much color as copper and gold - aluminium is much more ultraviolet.
- Happy Customer, Neurologics interactive advertisement 2350

Daemon chip
An implant from Nova. It is an independent processor linked to the neurocomputer built to house an AI. The AI program has access to the sensory data and information in the neurocomputer, and can "read" surface thoughts of the owner (of course, access controls can be set if needed, both in the implant and the AI). Having a Daemon (or several) as advisor/secretary/partner is becoming more and more common, although most people rely on an external AI system and a wireless neural connection. It is not uncommon for users to get a motoric shunt to give the AI the ability to control the body. Daemon chips with monitoring AIs are sometimes used for punishment or behaviour correction in Landfall.

Common brands are CogniSoft-Neurologics Mentor 3400™, Janus HGA™, Medtronics Assistant™ and Cetidyne Sidekick X™.

An implant of the limbic system, enabling the owners to control their moods. Normally it just sets an allowed range and a bias (e.g. towards cheerfulness or calm), but it can also induce stronger emotional states. The implant is somewhat dangerous due to the risk of addiction to extreme positive states; most users at least tend to improve their mood. Originally it was developed on Nova for treatment of certain emotional disorders, especially the rare but devastating OIAIS (Ocean Induced AutoImmune Syndrome, an autoimmune illness induced by certain poisons causing severe mood swings due to damage of the limbic system). Later more widespread use developed. There are also moodcasters, systems sending signals to the implants of people who have allowed access. Moodcasters are mainly used in virtual dramas and in certain bionic clubs.

Common brands: Neurologics Pathos Series (I-IV) ™, Limbic Technologies Adonet™, MedTronics Nimbus 4™ and Neurointerfacing Interstellar LSS™. Neurologics also sells a series of limited implants just regulating single emotions such as aggression, sexuality or curiosity, the Heartland Series.

Autonomous control
Enables the owner to control many aspects of the autonomous nervous system such as hunger, sleep or pain. Turning off these functions are of course dangerous, but sometimes useful. It can also act as a super-alarm clock (guaranteed to wake you up) or "homeostatic tuner" to optimise the hormone balance of the body.

Common brands: MedTronics Tenacity 1™, Neurologics Autocontrol™, Kellerman Systems Regulator™.

Wideband Link
The implants used by Unity to achieve group consciousness. Unlike an ordinary neurointerface it connects to most of the cerebral cortex and has a much higher bandwidth. It can send and receive signals not just of primary sensory and motor information but also higher order associations and thoughts. Since each human has an individual "mental language" sophisticated translation systems and much training is required before digital telepathy is possible. Wideband links are also used by the Net Transcendence and Next Step Foundation in their experiments with expanding the human mind. One of the most controversial and interesting applications is to let software rewrite parts of the cortex; theoretically this could be the ultimate psychodesign, even if it is currently extremely crude. Some AIs are apparently interested in using this approach to "download" themselves to physical bodies.

Common brands: Unity Neurotechnologies Wideband Link™, BridgeTech Neocortex Interface™.

Medial forebrain pacemaker
An implant in the motivation and pleasure centres that is controlled by the owner’s neurocomputer. It is illegal on Nova and very addictive: users quickly become hooked on anything that activates it. It can be used together with behaviour therapy to change habits and personality, a kind of bionic psychodesign: the user links the implant to some reward evaluator (such as a monitoring AI) that rewards certain actions. The result is a strong increase in rewarded actions, which can be used to produce extreme ambition or tenacity. Unfortunately the temptations and dangers of use are huge.

Survival System
An anti-trauma network of implants, intended to maximise the chances of survival when the body is damaged. Small shunts can cut of blood loss and release protecting chemicals, as well as act as a pacemaker for the heart and lungs. If everything else is lost, the implant can douse the brain in neuroprotectants and lower body temperature to slow down damage so that an emergency cryonic suspension can be done.

Connon brands: MedTronics Titan™, Uustal E-3™, Pacekeeper Second Chance 4.03™

[ Gives extra mortal levels beyond the ordinary; an Ordinary Survival System gives one extra moral levels, a Good system two and an amazing three. ]

Medical monitors
Likely the most common implants on Nova. Small sensors implanted in the body provides information on the health state which can be used to detect and diagnose illnesses at an early stage. Simple systems just give some chemical information, body data and a rough picture of activity in different organ systems. More advanced monitors are finely spread, detecting minute local changes and comparing the body’s reactions against medical models.

Common brands are MedTronics Hygiea™, Neurologics Body Monitor™, Uustal H-8™ and Hawk Inner Eyes.

Medical support system
The adjunct to the medical monitoring system; to use a support system the monitors need to be installed (they are often bought as a package). Support systems can perform medical support by releasing microdoses of chemicals in various places in the body, for example lowering blood pressure, detecting and dealing with shock and blood loss, balancing immune responses or maintaining healthy hormone levels.

Some common brands are MedTronics Ascleipios™ (contains a small medical expert system offering diagnosis and suggestions), Neurologics Body Controller™, LK Tech DD™ and Kempler Survivalbox™.

[Gives a -1 pain control bonus and adds 1 to END. ]

Sensory Shunt
A shunt in the brain nerves and spinal cord enabling recording/replaying of sensory information, increasing/decreasing its strength, adding artificial sensations and sensory blockades. The information is highly individual, mapping it to somebody else's experience requires much postprocessing and will not produce a high fidelity experience (this doesn't deter the connoisseurs of sense data on Nova, who regard just the lack of fidelity as a poignant reminder of how different we are).

MedTronics Argus™, LK Tech Spine™ (a combined Motor and Sensory shunt), Neurologics Dorsal™.

[If pain is deleted, the character gets a -5 bonus to pain control (gross damage still tends to freak people out)]

Motor Shunt
A shunt in the spinal cord enabling recording, replay, dampening and computer control of movement. The most common application is to allow software to control movements, for example to perform delicate or even to exercise while sleeping. For this to work well a sensory shunt or cybernetic sense implants are needed, otherwise the movements will not react much to the environment. The control can come from an enhance program, an AI running on a daemon chip or external commands from another person using a motor shunt ("puppeteering").

MedTronics Casper™, LK Tech Spine™ (a combined Motor and Sensory shunt), Neurologics Ventral™.

[ This replaces the Alternity reflex implant. Acting through a motor shunt is at a +2 penalty unless the "puppet" and "puppeteer" train together, which brings the penalty down to +1. ]

A biological implant of cultured cholinergic cells covering part of the cortex (usually the motor cortex) that can increase the local learning rate. Usually used for rehabilitation after brain damage, but can also be used to rapidly learn new skills at the price of forgetting old. Some extreme bionicists on Nova have used it to become extremely fluid, but it tends to cause personality dissolution and is much more expensive than just taking large doses of memory enhancers.
Neurologics Plasticity™, Regiosys 2™, LK Tech Cortex II™.

[ The character can through training redistribute one skillpoint per week from one skill to another. ]

Babel Chip™
A best-selling implant from Neurologics. The device connects the neurocomputer with the ear, vocal musculature and enables a translation expert system to act as an intermediary. It automatically translates languages it knows into the owner's selected language, and when the owner speaks it can translate the message into a new language and do the speaking. The system is far from perfect yet, but sufficiently useful that people buy it. As a bonus the chip provides some auditory control (the user can change the volume and pitch of hearing, filter it or do other signal processing). There is a limited version (the Babel Lite) that just translates to the owner and does not speak.
New technology to show dreams on screen

Press TV
Thursday, Dec 11, 2008

A Japanese research team has invented a technology that if completed could display people's thoughts and dreams on a computer screen.

Researchers at the ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories say they have succeeded in processing and displaying images directly from the human brain that may open the door to unexplored dimensions of the brain and shed light on the function of dreams in the human psyche.

The study is still in its primitive stages and so far the images that the team has managed to pick up from electrical signals of the brain are still very simple. The research team, however, hopes to eventually use the technology to figure out dreams and visualize what people imagine in their minds.

When people look at an object, the eye's retina recognizes an image that is converted into electrical signals which go into the brain's visual cortex.

The team, led by chief researcher Yukiyasu Kamitani, succeeded in catching these signals and then reconstructing what people see on screen.

In their experiment, the researchers showed people the six letters in the word "neuron" and then succeeded in reconstructing the letters on a computer screen by measuring their brain activity.

The team said that it first figured out people's individual brain patterns by showing them some 400 different still images.
The Forgotten Era of BRAINCHIPS

By John Horgan
director of the center for science writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., was a staff writer for Scientific American from 1986 to 1997 and then, until recently, a freelance writer. His books include The End of Science, The Undiscovered Mind and Rational Mysticism.

In brain-stimulation research four decades ago, goes largely unacknowledged today. What happened?

In the early 1970s Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado, a professor of physiology at Yale University, was among the world’s most acclaimed—and controversial neuroscientists. In 1970 the New York Times Magazine hailed him in a cover story as the “impassioned prophet of a new ‘psychocivilized society’ whose members would influence and alter their own mental functions.” The article added, though, that some of Delgado’s Yale colleagues saw “frightening potentials” in his work.

Delgado, after all, had pioneered that most unnerving of technologies, the brain chip—an electronic device that can manipulate the mind by receiving signals from and transmitting them to neurons. Long the McGuffins of science fiction, from The Terminal Man to The Matrix, brain chips are now being used or tested as treatments for epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, paralysis, blindness and other disorders. Decades ago Delgado carried out experiments that were more dramatic in some respects than anything being done today.

He implanted radio-equipped electrode arrays, which he called “stimoceivers,” in cats, monkeys, chimpanzees, gibbons, bulls and even humans, and he showed that he could control subjects’ minds and bodies with the push of a button. Yet after Delgado moved to Spain in 1974, his reputation in the U.S. faded, not only from public memory but from the minds and citation lists of other scientists. He described his results in more than 500 peer-reviewed papers and in a widely reviewed 1969 book, but these are seldom cited by modern researchers. In fact, some familiar with his early work assume he died. But Delgado, who recently moved with his wife, Caroline, from Spain to San Diego, Calif., is very much alive and well, and he has a unique perspective on modern efforts to treat various disorders by stimulating specific areas of the brain.

When Lobotomies
Were the Rage

born in 1915 in Ronda, Spain, Delgado went on to earn a medical degree from the University of Madrid in the 1930s. Although he has long been dogged by rumors that he supported the fascist regime of Francisco Franco, he actually served in the medical corps of the Republican Army (which opposed Franco during Spain’s civil war) while he was a medical student. After Franco crushed the Republicans, Delgado was detained in a concentration camp for five months before resuming his studies. He originally intended to become an eye doctor, like his father. But a stint in a physiology laboratory—plus exposure to the writings of the great Spanish neuroscientist Santiago Ramón y Cajal—left him entranced by “the many mysteries of the brain. How little was known then. How little is known now!” Delgado was particularly intrigued by the experiments of Swiss physiologist Walter Rudolf

Hess. Beginning in the 1920s, Hess had demonstrated that he could elicit behaviors such as rage, hunger and sleepiness in cats by electrically stimulating different spots in their brains with wires. In 1946 Delgado won a yearlong fellowship at Yale. In 1950 he accepted a position in its department of physiology, then headed by John Fulton, who played a crucial role in the history of psychiatry. In a 1935 lecture in London, Fulton had reported that a violent, “neurotic” chimpanzee named Becky had become calm and compliant after surgical destruction of her prefrontal lobes. In the audience was Portuguese psychiatrist Egas Moniz, who started performing lobotomies on psychotic patients and claimed excellent results. After Moniz won a Nobel Prize in 1949, lobotomies became an increasingly popular treatment for mental illness. Initially disturbed that his method of pacifying a chimpanzee had been applied to humans, Fulton later became a cautious proponent of psychosurgery. Delgado disagreed with his mentor’s stance. “I thought Fulton and Moniz’s idea of destroying the brain was absolutely horrendous,” Delgado recalls. He felt it would be “far more conservative” to treat mental illness by applying the electrical stimulation methods pioneered by Hess—who shared the 1949 prize with Moniz. “My idea was to avoid lobotomy,” Delgado says, “with the help of electrodes implanted in the brain.” One key to Delgado’s scientific success was his skill as an inventor; a Yale colleague once called him a “technological wizard.” In his early experiments, wires ran from implanted electrodes out through the skull and skin to bulky electronic devices that recorded data and delivered electrical pulses. This setup restricted subjects’ movements and left them prone to infections. Hence, Delgado designed radio-equipped stimoceivers as small as half-dollars that could be fully implanted in subjects. His other inventions included an early version of the cardiac pacemaker and implantable “chemitrodes” that could release precise amounts of drugs directly into specific areas of the brain. In 1952 Delgado co-authored the first peer-reviewed paper describing longterm implantation of electrodes in humans, narrowly beating a report by Robert Heath of Tulane University. Over the next two decades Delgado implanted electrodes in some 25 human subjects, most of them schizophrenics and epileptics, at a now defunct mental hospital in Rhode Island. He operated, he says, only on desperately ill patients whose disorders had resisted all previous treatments. Early on, his placement of electrodes in humans was guided by animal experiments, studies of brain-damaged people and the work of Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield; beginning in the 1930s, Penfield stimulated epileptics’ brains with electrodes before surgery to determine where he should operate.

Taming a Fighting Bull
Delgado showed that stimulation of the motor cortex could elicit specific physical reactions, such as movement of the limbs. One patient clenched his fist when stimulated, even when he tried to resist. “I guess, doctor, that your electricity is stronger than my will,” the patient commented. Another subject, turning his head from side to side in response to stimulation, insisted he was doing so voluntarily, explaining, “I am looking for my slippers.” By stimulating different regions of the limbic system, which regulates emotion, Delgado could also induce fear, rage, lust, hilarity, garrulousness and other reactions, some of them startling in their intensity. In one experiment, Delgado and two collaborators at Harvard

University stimulated the temporal lobe of a 21-year-old epileptic woman while she was calmly playing a guitar; in response, she flew into a rage and smashed her guitar against a wall, narrowly missing a researcher’s head. Perhaps the most medically promising finding was that stimulation of a limbic region called the septum could trigger euphoria, strong enough in some cases to counteract depression and even physical pain. Delgado limited his human research, however, because the therapeutic benefits of implants were unreliable; results varied widely from patient to patient and could be unpredictable even in the same subject. In fact, Delgado recalls turning away more patients than he treated, including a young woman who was sexually promiscuous and prone to violence and had repeatedly been confined in jails and mental hospitals. Although both the woman and her parents begged Delgado to implant electrodes in her, he refused, feeling that electrical stimulation was too primitive for a case involving no discernible neurological disorder. Delgado did much more extensive research on monkeys and other animals, often focusing on neural regions that elicit and inhibit aggression. In one demonstration, which explored the effects of stimulation on social hierarchy, he implanted a stimoceiver in a macaque bully. He then installed a lever in the cage that, when pressed, pacified the bully by causing the stimoceiver to stimulate the monkey’s caudate nucleus, a brain region involved in controlling voluntary movements. A female in the cage soon discovered the lever’s power and yanked it whenever the male threatened her. Delgado, who never shied from anthropomorphic interpretations, wrote, “The old dream of an individual overpowering the strength of a dictator by remote control has been fulfilled, at least in our monkey colonies.” Delgado’s most famous experiment took place in 1963 at a bull-breeding ranch in Cordoba, Spain. After inserting stimoceivers into the brains of several “fighting bulls,” he stood in a bullring with one bull at a time and, by pressing buttons on a handheld transmitter, controlled each animal’s actions. In one instance, captured in a dramatic photograph, Delgado forced a charging bull to skid to a halt only a few feet away from him by stimulating its caudate nucleus. The New York Times published a frontpage story on the event, calling it “the most spectacular demonstration ever performed of the deliberate modification of animal behavior through external control of the brain.” Other articles hailed Delgado’s transformation of an aggressive beast into a real-life version of Ferdinand the bull, the gentle hero of a popular children’s story. In terms of scientific significance, Delgado believes his experiment on a female chimpanzee named Paddy deserved more attention. Delgado programmed Paddy’s stimoceiver to detect distinctive signals, called spindles, spontaneously emitted by her amygdala. Whenever the stimoceiver detected a spindle, it stimulated the central gray region of Paddy’s brain, producing an “aversive reaction”—that is, a painful or unpleasant sensation. After two hours of this negative feedback, Paddy’s amygdala produced 50 percent fewer spindles; the frequency dropped by 99 percent within six days. Paddy was not exactly a picture of health: she became “quieter, less attentive and less motivated during behavioral testing,” Delgado wrote. He nonetheless speculated that this “automatic learning” technique could be used to quell epileptic seizures, panic attacks or other disorders characterized by specific brain signals. Delgado’s research was supported not only by civilian agencies but also by military ones such as the Office of Naval Research (but never, Delgado insists, by the Central Intelligence Agency, as some conspiracy theorists have charged). Delgado, who calls himself a pacifist, says that his Pentagon sponsors viewed his work as basic research and never steered him toward military applications. He has always dismissed speculation that implants could create cyborg soldiers who kill on command, like the brainwashed assassin in the novel and film versions of The Manchurian Candidate. (The assassin was controlled by psychological methods in the original 1962 film and by a brain chip in the 2004 remake.) Brain stimulation may “increase or decrease aggressive behavior,” he asserts, but it cannot “direct aggressive behavior to any specific target.”

Overview/Brain Implants

· Jose M. R. Delgado, a pioneer in brain-implant technology, is perhaps most famous for halting a charging bull by merely pressing a button on a device that sent signals to the animal’s brain.

· In the early 1970s Delgado went from being acclaimed to being criticized. In 1974 he moved from the U.S. to Spain and then gradually faded from public consciousness and the citation lists of neuroscientists.

· His accomplishments, however, helped to pave the way for modern brain-implant technology, which is enjoying a resurgence today and is improving life for patients with epilepsy and such movement disorders as Parkinson’s and dystonia.

· Delgado, now 90, recently returned to the U.S., complete with strong opinions on the promise and perils of the ongoing work.

FIGHTING BULL with a stimoceiver in its brain (below) charged Delgado in a Spanish bullring in 1963 (middle two photographs) and then stopped and turned in response to a radio signal from Delgado (far right). Critics contended that the stimulation did not quell the bull’s aggressive instinct, as Delgado suggested, but rather forced it to turn to the left. Delgado, who grew up in Ronda, Spain, a bastion of bullfighting, admits he felt “frightened” just before his signal made the bull abandon the chase.

Envisioning a “Psychocivilized Society”
FEMALE MACAQUE (far left in first photograph) learned that by pulling a lever in the cage she could escape encounters with an alpha male. The lever sent a signal to a stimoceiver in his brain, pacifying him. The alpha male is in the pacified state at the far right in the left image and has become aggressive in the other shot. Delgado carried out many investigations, such as this one in the early 1960s, into the effects of brain stimulation on social interactions.

In 1969 Delgado described brain stimulation research and discussed its implications in Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society, which was illustrated with photographs of monkeys, cats, a bull and two young women whose turbans concealed stimoceivers. (Female patients “have shown their feminine adaptability to circumstance,” Delgado remarked, “by wearing attractive hats or wigs to conceal their electrical headgear.”) Spelling out the limitations of brain stimulation, Delgado downplayed “Orwellian possibilities” in which evil scientists enslave people by implanting electrodes in their brains. Yet some of his rhetoric had an alarmingly evangelical tone. Neurotechnology, he declared, was on the verge of “conquering the mind” and creating “a less cruel, happier, and better man.” In a review in Scientific American, the late physicist Philip Morrison called Physical

Control “a thoughtful, up-to-date account” of electrical stimulation experiments but added that its implications were “somehow ominous.” In 1970 Delgado’s field was engulfed in a scandal triggered by Frank Ervin and Vernon Mark, two researchers at Harvard Medical School with whom Delgado briefly collaborated. (One of Ervin’s students was Michael Crichton, who wrote The Terminal Man. The best-seller, about a bionic experiment gone awry, was inspired by the research of Ervin, Mark and Delgado.) In their book, Violence and the Brain, Ervin and Mark suggested that brain stimulation or psychosurgery might quell the violent tendencies of blacks rioting in inner cities. In 1972 Heath, the Tulane psychiatrist, raised more questions about brain-implant research when he reported that he had tried to change the sexual orientation of a male homosexual by stimulating his septal region while he had intercourse with a female prostitute. The fiercest opponent of brain implants was psychiatrist Peter Breggin (who in recent decades has focused on the dangers of psychiatric drugs). In testimony submitted into the Congressional Record in 1972, Breggin lumped Delgado, Ervin, Mark and Heath together with advocates of lobotomies and accused them of trying to create “a society in which everyone who deviates from the norm” will be “surgically mutilated.” Quoting liberally from Physical Control, Breggin singled out Delgado as “the great apologist for technologic totalitarianism.” In his 1973 book Brain Control, Elliot Valenstein, a neurophysiologist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, presented a detailed scientific critique of brain-implant research by Delgado and others, contending that the results of stimulation were much less precise and therapeutically beneficial than proponents often suggested. (Delgado notes that in his own writings he made many of the same points as Valenstein.) Meanwhile strangers started accusing Delgado of having secretly implanted stimoceivers in their brains. One woman who made this claim sued Delgado and Yale University for $1 million, although he had never met her. In the midst of this brouhaha, Villar Palasi, the Spanish minister of health, asked Delgado to help organize a new medical school at the Autonomous University in Madrid, and he accepted, moving with his wife and two children to Spain in 1974. He insists that he was not fleeing the disputes surrounding his research; the minister’s offer was just too good to refuse. “I said, ‘Could I have the facilities I have at Yale?’ And he said, ‘Oh, no, much better!’” In Spain, Delgado shifted his focus to noninvasive methods of affecting the brain, which he hoped would be more medically acceptable than implants. Anticipating modern techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, he invented a halolike device and a helmet that could deliver electromagnetic pulses to specific neural regions. Testing the gadgets on both animals and human volunteers— including himself and his daughter, Linda—Delgado discovered that he could induce drowsiness, alertness and other states; he also had some success treating tremors in Parkinson’s patients. Delgado still could not entirely escape controversy. In the mid-1980s an article in the magazine Omni and documentaries by the BBC and CNN cited Delgado’s work as circumstantial evidence that the U.S. and Soviet Union might have secretly developed methods for remotely modifying people’s thoughts. Noting that the power and precision of electromagnetic pulses decline rapidly with distance, Delgado dismisses these mind-control claims as “science fiction.” Except for these fl ashes of publicity, however, Delgado’s work no longer received the attention it once had. Although he continued publishing articles—especially on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on cognition, behavior and embryonic growth—many appeared only in Spanish journals. Moreover, brain-stimulation studies back in the U.S. bogged down in ethical controversies, grants dried up, and researchers drifted to other fields, notably psychopharmacology, which seemed to be a much safer, more effective way to treat brain disorders than brain stimulation or surgery. Only in the past decade has brain-implant research revived, spurred by advances in computation, electrodes, microelectronics and brain-scanning technologies and by a growing recognition of the limits of drugs for treating mental illness. Delgado, who stopped doing research in the early 1990s but still follows the field of brain stimulation, believes modern investigators fail to cite his studies not because he was so controversial but simply out of ignorance; after all, most modern databases do not include publications from his heyday in the 1950s and 1960s. He is thrilled by the resurgence of research on brain stimulation, because he still believes in its potential to liberate us from psychiatric diseases and our innate aggression. “In the near future,” he says, “I think we will be able to help many human beings, especially with the noninvasive methods.”

Delgado’s successors have faced some of the same questions that he did about possible abuses of neurotechnology. Some pundits have expressed concern that brain chips could allow a “controlling organization” to “hack into the wetware between our ears,” as New York Times columnist William Safire put it. An editorial in Nature recently expressed concern that officials in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a major funder of brain-implant research, have openly considered implanting brain chips in soldiers to boost their cognitive capacities. Meanwhile some techno-enthusiasts, such as British computer scientist Kevin Warwick, contend that the risks of brain chips are far outweighed by the potential benefits, which will include instantly “downloading” new languages or other skills, controlling computers and other devices with our thoughts, and communicating telepathically with one another. Delgado predicts that neurotechnologies may never advance as far as many people fear or hope. The applications envisioned by Warwick and others, Delgado points out, require knowing how complex information is encoded in the brain, a goal that neuroscientists are far from achieving. Moreover, learning quantum mechanics or a new language involves “slowly changing connections which are already there,” Delgado says. “I don’t think you can do that suddenly.” Brain stimulation, he adds, can only modify skills and capacities that we already possess. But Delgado looks askance at the suggestion of the White House Council on Bioethics and others that some scientific goals—particularly those that involve altering human nature—should not even be pursued. To be sure, he says, technology “has two sides, for good and for bad,” and we should do what we can to “avoid the adverse consequences.” We should try to prevent potentially destructive technologies from being abused by authoritarian governments to gain more power or by terrorists to wreak destruction. But human nature, Delgado asserts, echoing one of the themes of Physical Control, is not static but “dynamic,” constantly changing as a result of our compulsive self-exploration. “Can you avoid knowledge?” Delgado asks. “You cannot! Can you avoid technology? You cannot! Things are going to go ahead in spite of ethics, in spite of your personal beliefs, in spite of everything.”

Brain Implants Today

KARI WEINER was confined to a wheelchair (left) for seven years by dystonia, a condition that causes uncontrollable muscle spasms. Now (right) she walks without assistance, thanks to battery powered electrodes that were implanted in her brain when she was 13—and to surgeries that then repaired her twisted muscles and lengthened her tendons.

When Jose Delgado and a few other intrepid scientists first began exploring the effects of implanting electrodes in the brain half a century ago, they could not foresee how many people would one day benefit from this line of research. By far the most successful form of implant, or “neural prosthesis,” is the artificial cochlea. More than 70,000 people have been equipped with these devices, which restore at least rudimentary hearing by feeding signals from an external microphone to the auditory nerve. Brain stimulators have been implanted in more than 30,000 people suffering from Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders (including 17-year-old Kari Weiner, shown at the right). Roughly the same number of epileptics are being treated with devices that stimulate the Vagus nerve in the neck. Work on other prostheses is proceeding more slowly. Clinical trials are now under way to test brain and Vagus nerve stimulation for treating disorders such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic attacks and chronic pain. Artificial retinas—light-sensitive chips that mimic the eye’s signal-processing ability and stimulate the optic nerve or visual cortex—have been tested in a handful of blind subjects, but they usually “see” nothing more than phosphenes, or bright spots. Several groups have recently shown that monkeys can control computers and robotic arms “merely by thinking,” as media accounts invariably put it—not telekinetically but via implanted electrodes picking up neural signals. The potential for empowering the paralyzed is obvious, but so far few experiments with humans have been carried out, with limited success. Chips that might restore the memory of those afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease or other disorders are still a year or two away from testing in rats. The potential market for neural prostheses is enormous. An estimated 10 million Americans grapple with major depression; 4.5 million suffer from memory loss caused by Alzheimer’s disease; more than two million have been paralyzed by spinal cord injuries, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and strokes; and more than a million are legally blind. —J.H.

Controlling Robots with the Mind. Miguel A. L. Nicolelis and John K. Chapin in Scientific American, Vol. 287, No. 4, pages 46–53; October 2002.

Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human. Michael Chorost.
Houghton Miffl in, 2005. (A personal story on the pros and cons of brain implants.)

The President’s Council on Bioethics Web site is at

An overview of modern brain stimulation can be found at

Other Web sites extol the utopian possibilities of brain stimulation,

or deplore it as a government mind-control plot
Quantum imaging opens new paths for optical sensors,holography, cryptography.

("The U.S. military may one day obtain detailed reconnaissance imagery with laser light that has never touched a target. By using two laser beams and taking advantage of a unique characteristic of quantum mechanics that permits one beam to mirror the state of its twin, researchers are developing low-power systems that can measure, or illuminate, objects across a variety of frequencies, yet generate detailed pictures in the visible spectrum.")

SIGNAL Magazine
Quantum holography

("Abstract: We propose to make use of quantum entanglement for extracting holographic information about a remote 3-D object in a confined space which light enters, but from which it cannot escape. Light scattered from the object is detected in this confined space entirely without the benefit of spatial resolution. Quantum holography offers this possibility by virtue of the fourth-order quantum coherence inherent in entangled beams.")

This technology is between 5 and 7 years old. You know that the government and the military has got to have advanced these concepts significantly over the last seven years. Perhaps when they scan an object (human being) and recreate a high -resolution 4D hologram at a distant location of that individual, maybe, because of the strange nature of entanglement, they are recreating much more than just the image of the person. Perhaps they are also recreating that person's thoughts and memories as well. After all, anything that possesses matter or energy
(thoughts and memories) also possesses a quantum wavefunction which might be entangled.

Physics Encounters Quantum Enigma,
by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner

(".... Quantum theory is stunningly successful. Not a single one of its predictions has ever been wrong.

.... That physics has encountered consciousness cannot be denied. The continuing "interpretation" of quantum
mechanics displays that encounter ....

... that the connection of the quantum enigma to the mystery of consciousness merits attention, will be obvious. ....

... can be that quantum mechanics simply shows that we must merely abandon naive realism. ....

... this "wave-particle" duality was applied not just to light, but to everything.

Quantum theory is not just one of many theories in physics. It is the framework upon which all of today's physics is
ultimately based. ....

.... Quantum theory is about the here and now, and it even encounters the essence of our humanity, our consciousness.

.... Since quantum mechanics can make Nature appear almost mystical ....

.... What's waving in Schrodinger's matter wave? The mathematical representation of the wave is called the
"wavefunction." In some real sense, the wavefunction of an object is the object. ....

.... Cosmologists contemplate the wavefunction of the whole universe ....

.... Cosmologists write a wavefunction for the whole universe to study the Big Bang. ....")
Homeland Security testing mind-reading checkpoints

By Humphrey Cheung
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 15:33

Washington DC - The Department of Homeland Security is currently testing a scanning system that can almost read your mind. Aptly called MALINTENT, the system is sort of like a polygraph test and scans for body temperature, respiration and a voice stress except that in this case the person being scanned isn't hooked up to any cables. MALINTENT is run out of a modified trailer and is currently being tested by the Department of Homeland Security's Directorate for Science and Technology.
The system was recently tested in Maryland against 144 people who believed they were going to a technology expo. 23 of those people were told to act like terrorists and tried to smuggle an explosive device into the venue. People line up outside the trailer and enter one by one. Once inside they are greeted by security agents, a standup metal detector and various other sensors studded along the walls. You can see MALINTENT in action in the following Fox News video link.
Subjects are asked to look directly at the interviewer while they answer several security questions like o you plan to detonate an explosive at the expo today??and o you plan to illegally record any information at the expo today??Sensors monitor the subjects?voice, facial muscles, body temperature, respiration rate and heart rate while being interviewed. Computers then convert these readings a risk assessment and in the system can recommend further screening for those who are apparently up to no good.
The Department of Homeland Security wants to implement MALINTENT into FAST trailers (Future Attribute Screening Technology) and claims the system gives a fast and nonbiased way of screening people. Each person can be screened in approximately two to four minutes and the computers supposedly aren't fooled by anxious or hurried people.
Of course privacy advocates are raising questions about all the data that is gathered during the screening process, but the Department of Homeland Security is assuring the public that all the information gathered by MALINTENT will be erased after the subject steps out of the trailer.
Like all experimental projects extra sensors and modifications are being added as we speak the Department of Homeland Security hopes adding eye scanner and pheromone reading sensor by 2010 the department is also looking into adding body movement scanners.

(Mind reading technologies will be used in many area. but The Department of Homeland Security surely will not use the most advanced mind reading technologies which can read everyone's thoughts in public place. Public will against such technologies used in any public place. noone like someone else know what he is thinking every minutes. no privacy)
Japanese Group Reconstructs Visual Images from Brain Activity Patterns
Dec 12, 2008 19:24
Yousuke Ogasawara, Nikkei Electronics

The drawing illustrates the "visual image reconstruction" technology developed by the Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (ATR) and others, which reconstructs figures seen by a subject into images by measuring human brain activity.

A conceptual diagram of the visual image reconstruction technology will be on the cover of a US magazine "Neuron." The figures and alphabetical letters in the background are the images used in the experiment. The images in the film were actually reconstructed from the brain activity, according to ATR.

A Japanese research group developed the "visual image reconstruction" technology to reconstruct figures seen by a subject into images by measuring human brain activity.

The group was led by the Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (ATR) and National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT).

By using a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) system, the new technology measures the patterns of brain activity in the cerebral visual cortex invoked by image information entered through eyes. The field of vision is divided into small areas, and the contrast in each area is estimated based on the corresponding brain activity pattern.

Visual images are reconstructed by combining the estimated contrast values. The error was reduced by combining the estimated values obtained from the assumption that the field of vision is divided in a number of different resolutions.

In the research, 440 images were presented to the subject so that the program can learn the correlation between each image and the brain activity. The image was treated as a combination of small unit elements, and the view angle of about 1° (1.7cm when seen from 1m away) was set as one pixel. The correlation between the image and the brain activity was input to the program for each of the cases where three different unit elements were used, ie, 1 pixel (row) x 2 pixels (column), 2 pixels (row) x 1 pixel (column) and 2 pixels (row) x 2 pixels (column).

Based on the program to which the correlation was input, the image seen by the subject was reconstructed into a 10 x 10 pixel image. Images were accurately constructed even when the subject saw figures or alphabetical letters that were not used in the learning of brain activity patterns, according to ATR.

It was also possible to identify the correct image among more than 100 million candidates, the institute said. Furthermore, the changes of the presented image can be played back as video by utilizing the fMRI signal that is updated every two seconds.

Visual information is converted into electric signals by the retina and then processed by the neurons in the cerebral region called visual cortex, which is located at the back of the head. The visual cortex has a hierarchical structure composed of regions called the primary, secondary visual cortices, etc located in this order from the side closer to the input from the retina.

In the research, the highest reconstruction accuracy was achieved when the brain activity in the primary visual cortex was used. And the higher the order of visual cortex, the lower the accuracy, according to ATR. It was also found that, in the primary visual cortex, a greater amount of information was represented by the patterns between the brain activity signals than by the intensity of individual signals, when compared with visual cortices on other orders.

The technology was developed through a joint-research by ATR, NICT, the Nara Institute of Science and Technology and Japan's National Institute of Natural Science. The achievement will be published in the Dec 11, 2008 edition of a US magazine "Neuron." The authors and the tile of the article are as follows.

Yoichi Miyawaki, Hajime Uchida, Okito Yamashita, Masa-aki Sato, Yusuke Morito, Hiroki C. Tanabe, Norihiro Sadato, Yukiyasu Kamitani. "Visual image reconstruction from human brain activity using a combination of multi-scale local image decoders"
Mind-reading machine knows what you see
15:26 25 April 2005
It is possible to read someone's mind by remotely measuring their brain activity, researchers have shown. The technique can even extract information from subjects that they are not aware of themselves.

So far, it has only been used to identify visual patterns a subject can see or has chosen to focus on. But the researchers speculate the approach might be extended to probe a person's awareness, focus of attention, memory and movement intention. In the meantime, it could help doctors work out if patients apparently in a coma are actually conscious.

Scientists have already trained monkeys to move a robotic arm with the power of thought and to recreate scenes moving in front of cats by recording information directly from the feline's neurons (New Scientist print edition, 2 October 1999). But these processes involve implanting electrodes into their brains to hook them up to a computer.

Now Yukiyasu Kamitani, at ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan, and Frank Tong at Princeton University in New Jersey, US, have achieved similar "mind reading" feats remotely using functional MRI scanning.

Between the lines
The pair showed patterns of parallel lines in 1 of 8 orientations to four volunteers. By focussing on brain regions involved in visual perception they were able to recognise which orientation the subjects were observing.

Each line orientation corresponded to a different pattern of brain activity, although the patterns were different in each person. What is more, when two sets of lines were superimposed and the subjects were asked to focus on one set, the researchers could work out which one they were thinking of from the brain images.

In a separate study, also published in Nature Neuroscience, John-Dylan Haynes and Geraint Rees at University College London, UK, showed two patterns in quick succession to 6 volunteers. The first appeared for just 15 milliseconds - too quick to be consciously perceived by the viewer.

But by viewing fMRI images of the brain, the researchers were able to say which image had been flashed in front of the subjects. The information was perceived in the brain even if the volunteers were not consciously aware of it.

The study probed the part of the visual cortex that detects a visual stimulus, but does not perceive it. "It encodes what we don't see," Haynes says. He thinks that, further along the visual pathway, brain regions consciously take note that there has been a stimulus. But this does not happen for the "invisible" stimulus.

Consciousness kicks in
By understanding the perception pathway and working out the point at which consciousness kicks in, patient consciousness could be diagnosed. This would mean the setup could be used as a "consciousness-meter," says Haynes; "a device that allows us to assess whether a patient is consciously perceiving his or her outside environment."

Yang Dan, a neurobiologist at the University of California in Berkeley, agrees this would be possible. But she cautions that there is little agreement over what consciousness actually is.

More subtle forms of mind-reading such as working out intentions or beliefs are much more speculative, she argues. Even if such subtle information could be gleaned from brain scans both studies suggest the patterns are unique to individuals.

And using the technique as an alternative to the polygraph would be very risky, says Dan. "The relationship between brain patterns and lies may be very loose."

Journal reference: Nature Neuroscience (DOI: 10.1038/nn1445 and 10.1038/nn1444)
Neuroimaging Of Brain Shows Who Spoke To A Person And What Was Said
2008 11 13

Scientists from Maastricht University have developed a method to look into the brain of a person and read out who has spoken to him or her and what was said. With the help of neuroimaging and data mining techniques the researchers mapped the brain activity associated with the recognition of speech sounds and voices.

In their Science article "'Who' is Saying 'What'? Brain-Based Decoding of Human Voice and Speech," the four authors demonstrate that speech sounds and voices can be identified by means of a unique 'neural fingerprint' in the listener's brain. In the future this new knowledge could be used to improve computer systems for automatic speech and speaker recognition.

Seven study subjects listened to three different speech sounds (the vowels /a/, /i/ and /u/), spoken by three different people, while their brain activity was mapped using neuroimaging techniques (fMRI). With the help of data mining methods the researchers developed an algorithm to translate this brain activity into unique patterns that determine the identity of a speech sound or a voice. The various acoustic characteristics of vocal cord vibrations (neural patterns) were found to determine the brain activity.

Just like real fingerprints, these neural patterns are both unique and specific: the neural fingerprint of a speech sound does not change if uttered by somebody else and a speaker's fingerprint remains the same, even if this person says something different.

Moreover, this study revealed that part of the complex sound-decoding process takes place in areas of the brain previously just associated with the early stages of sound processing. Existing neurocognitive models assume that processing sounds actively involves different regions of the brain according to a certain hierarchy: after a simple processing in the auditory cortex the more complex analysis (speech sounds into words) takes place in specialised regions of the brain. However, the findings from this study imply a less hierarchal processing of speech that is spread out more across the brain.

The research was partly funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO): Two of the four authors, Elia Formisano and Milene Bonte carried out their research with an NWO grant (Vidi and Veni). The data mining methods were developed during the PhD research of Federico De Martino (doctoral thesis defended at Maastricht University on 24 October 2008).

Article from:

Reply to Discussion


Latest Activity

outi tuomi commented on H's group Finland
"Mutta kuitenkin Martille kiitos, että annoit minulletietoa  ja samalla laajalle lukijakunnalle, joka täällä käy tai jotkut käy ja kertovat porukoilleen. esim.terveydenhuollossa."
1 hour ago
outi tuomi commented on H's group Finland
"Kaliforniassa on jo muutaman vuoden ajan laadittu lakia, joka kriminalisoi gang stalkingin ja elektronisen häirinnän. Olisiko HAARP voinut olla viime kesän hirmuhelteiden takana. Metsäpalot nyt on helppo järjestää."
1 hour ago
Gretta Fahey posted blog posts
11 hours ago
outi tuomi commented on H's group Finland
"tämän tutkimuksen mahdollinen hyöty meille Jos  tarpeeksi moni jaksaa tehdä rikosilmoituksen ja vielä niin, että se vastaanotetaan ja poliisin on pakko antaa vastaus, miksi ei rupea tutkimaan asiaa ja sitten…"
13 hours ago
Ramon Gonzalez Morciglio posted a photo


Im a former NYPD/School Saftey Agent1998 - 2005After resigning in 2005...2007 perpetrators began attacking with energy weapons they murder my grandmother and scamed my father who won NY lottery 2002 millions of dollars in stock market scam.
22 hours ago
ROBERT WILLIAM MATTHEWS replied to ROBERT WILLIAM MATTHEWS's discussion How you become a TI?
"All that's going on in the world is UN AGENDA 21, which is also known as, AGENDA £30, which is the same thing.  when you hear a politician talking about, 'sustainable' development, productivity, energy, agriculture,…"
Lez commented on Sonar♦0's group Victimes Francophone De "Mind Control".
AtlantiTeo posted a blog post

Convenzione Norimberga

<╔═════════════════════╗>>>>>>><║CODICE DI NORIMBERGA (1946) ║>>>>>>><╚═════════════════════╝>>>>>>>►1. Il consenso volontario del soggetto umano è assolutamente essenziale. Ciò significa che la persona in…See More



© 2020   Created by Soleilmavis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service