Mind Control Science: Would You Put Your Public Money on It?

The perk of being human
The Perfect Worker: “like a smart assistant, rather than an independent being”
You Are Not Inspired Enough, You Are Fired!
Science is Policy
Intimidating Science and Policy making
Mind Control Science

Many of you have heard about the ‘new’ (it’s really old) science of the mind, the research being done for successfully uploading a mind into a computer…or uploading a software into your mind. Unquestionably, it is a fascinating scientific endeavor, described to us in awe-inspiring narrative. That precisely is one of the many problems with it.

We don’t need to be scientific gurus to understand and intuit that the progress this scientists of the mind  and their tech giant patrons are ‘selling’ us is dangerous, not in the interest of society at large, and pretty much fiction. Check Stephen Hawking’s position on this; it’s not just little me sounding the bells of alarm. Instead of ‘science of the mind’, it should be called ‘science of mind control’ ; but, then, you would not be in awe nor fascinated by their narrative, would you?  Then you would be asking the questions in the sections below.

The perk of being human    

We humans and citizens of the world have a tendency to complain a lot (me included) about the persistent problems that living in society entails. Humans are the only complaining animal on this planet, it’s a perk of being human. We complain and organize mostly around right or wrong national and state policies on just about everything:

  • use of natural resources,
  • justice system,
  • economic and education inequalities,
  • war and peace policies
  • access to health services…

Therein lies the perk of being a human: that we can question and make changes to how our society is functioning, that we are political animals.

The Perfect Worker: “like a smart assistant, rather than an independent being”

It is precisely a dislike of that complaining perk that motivates many of these tech giants controlling and dictating the path of ‘mind science’. All of their investment is going towards skipping over the ‘complaining’ humanity that interferes with the giants work. You can see that attitude if you read between the lines:

Allen’s vision is creating an AI machine that would be like a smart assistant, rather than an independent being,“answering questions and clarifying things for you and so forth.” But he admits he has wondered whether it will one day be possible for that assistant or its descendants to evolve into something more. [All quotes throughout the post are from WaPo article.]

What does that mean? Well, given that…

for Allen, understanding the brain is about cracking a code.

…let’s crack the code in that quote: they don’t want ‘independent beings’; their biggest bogeyman is the fear that their own creation would become an “independent being” and start making demands and complaining. That’s where the “he has wondered whether it will one day be possible for that assistant or its descendants to evolve into something more…” comes from. Because, where there is humanity, there is inequality and injustice; and the created will be programmed with the creators’ attitudes of class and caste system.

You Are Not Inspired Enough, You Are Fired!

Yes, class and caste system. Who do you think the you in “clarifying things for you” is? You? Think again.

I simply wanted to advance the field of artificial intelligence so that computers could do what they do best (organize and analyze information) to help people do what they do best, those inspired leaps of intuition that fuel original ideas and breakthroughs.”

If you consider a social worker of the month in a mental health program  the inspired person who fuels original ideas and breakthroughs, sadly, you are horribly mistaken; Steve Jobs and themselves is more who they have in mind in that quote. The social worker is the independent being that could throw a wrench into these people’s idea of how the mental system should help people think.

And to break the last code for the moment, look at this:

So while Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft’s Cortana — despite their maddening quirks — do a pretty good job of reminding you what’s on your calendar, you’d probably fire them in short of a week if you put them up against a real person.

Yeah, the problem is that they have the Trump attitude, “you are fired” if you don’t perform within a week! , but it works the other way around too. They are creating machines to take your place, and if YOU don’t perform better than the machine within a week, you can expect to be fired.

Science is Policy    

This science of the mind is POLICY already.

governments around the world have launched their own brain initiatives in recent years. The European Commission’s Human Brain Project…aims to create an artificial model of the human brain within a decade. President Obama announced the United States’ own BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) effort in 2014 to great fanfare,…

Now back to the beginning of this post, about policy.

Intimidating Science and Policy making

Consider this proposition: first, must of the problems experienced by citizens with adopted policies could have been avoided had their political representatives given them the honest facts about particular policies being discussed, and the opportunity to have a significant say on whether those policies advance our social interactions or would imperil them BEFORE the policies are adopted. Remember, that’s our perk.


We fail in our goals when we enact mindless policies, don’t we?

Second, the citizens themselves must want to know about those policies and not accept them blindly, because there are dire consequences from bad policies. So, citizens must ask:

  • who is initiating those policies and why?
  • who is steering their representatives into presenting as the representative’s own written proposal what is a corporation’s  written plan?
  • how and why do certain policies are given priority status over others?
  • who is doing the research that justify the adoption of certain policies?
  • who is doing the behind-the-curtain efforts to assure the policy in question is adopted or rejected when there is significant opposition or interest on it?

All of this discussion applies to the new science of the mind. You should be asking those questions because that ‘science’ is impactful to you and the future of your grandchildren.

The danger is on your face, but you had to walk right into it because…you trust you can handle it.

In the case of science policies, citizens don’t ask because they are fascinated by what has been presented to them by the scientists. Citizens question political and social policies mostly because they consider themselves knowledgeable about those issues, both in terms of personal experience and intellectually.

But science…ah! science, that mysterious human activity inaccessible for the common folk. We have been trained to think that only a few super-duper exceptional humans can dabble on such profound and mysterious enterprises. So, we passively and with awe consume Neil de Grasse’ scientific story telling, or the even more awe-inspiring prognostications that our scientists of the mind are feeding us: immortality in a couple of decades, uploading your mind into a computer for enhanced video game experience…or the game software into your ‘mind’ (brain would be more appropriate term) for the same enhanced experience.

Again, we don’t need to be scientific gurus to understand and intuit that the progress this scientists of the mind  are ‘selling’ us is dangerous, not in the interest of society at large, and pretty much fiction.

There is an outpouring of articles in the mainstream media about this ‘new’ science, presented to us in awe-inspiring narrative. It is up to you to wake up and ask those questions BEFORE the damage is done. This new science is POLICY, funds are allocated and relocated from other public sectors  to sustain it, all behind your back.

This science is about controlling your mind, and about the private property of the few inventions that could really help society, although many are being created with public funds.

Waves slammed into a seawall in Scituate in October 2012.

Guess who pays for the stupid policy that allowed building exclusive housing at a high risk of flood area? This image is an allegory to bring home the point of this post: even scientific policy enacted by our representatives must be questioned by the citizens because, like the policies approved for the construction of those houses, it is been done behind our backs and at our expense.

Mind Control Science

This post was based in part on the Washington Post’ series about mind science. Please, read those articles and read between the lines; these elite tech giant don’t hide their intentions too well. And pass the word on the need to question what they are feeding us about their ‘new’  science. Also, check the article on Obama’s brain project. If that doesn’t convince you of how all this ‘science’ is turning into mind control, nothing will.



This entry was posted in Mind Science, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Mind Control Science: Would You Put Your Public Money on It?

  1. Pingback: A Brief History of the End of the Comments: Must READ! | the Buddha was out of his MIND

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s