ETK (Webmaster) Introduction: What has the CIA and U.S. Military’s 70-year “Manhattan Project of the Mind” wrought? 1) Hundreds of thousands to many millions of innocent civilians have been destroyed in nonconsensual “terminal” experiments, 2) The elite now have the wherewithal to control others via brain-to-computer and brain-to-brain interfacing. BBI combines remote reading of brain signals via electroencephelaography (EEGs) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to deliver “information” (voices, images, dreams, false memories, commands, insults, fear, emotions, etc.) to the brain.
In my opinion, all discussions about the ethics of this technology are tantamount to ethical discussions about murder. These discussions are merely a “red herring” diversion. Those individuals that wield these technologies are committing murder of the minds and souls of their “targets.” If they are military personnel, they are also violating their oaths to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. They are committing treason (for depriving Americans of their Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties) and have BECOME the domestic enemy of the American people and the US Constitution. The neuro- and computer scientists who have brought us to this point and who continue these heinous acts should be tried, convicted, and punished accordingly.
I informally estimate that the U.S. government owes the victims of nonconsensual human experimentation many trillions in damages.
Killing one person is considered murder and is punished with the death penalty in many places. Killing many millions of people (estimates are that the secret wars of the CIA have killed upwards of 30 million) is regarded as “foreign policy.” Who is going to take away the US military and CIA’s self-conferred “license to kill?” If we don’t, God will, I suppose.
We should recall the words of America’s most decorated soldier, Marine Corps General Smedley Darlington Butler (from a 1933 speech and “War is a Racket,” 1936):
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. Every war which Americans have fought or may fight in the future outside their own continental boundaries has been or will be a racket- a mean, cruel, yes, filthy racket. During our participation in the World War (I), our soldiers thought they were fighting to defend their homes, to make the world safe for democracy, were fighting a war to end wars. Rot! Pure, unadulterated, sickening rot!
I. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME: THE MILITARY BENEFITS OF THE BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE IN 2040 (2015)
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY
A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty
In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF OPERATIONAL ARTS AND SCIENCES
Advisors: Major Reid J. Wynans and Major Thomas E. Kiesling
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama April 2015
By 2040, advanced brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) will provide the American warfighter with remarkable advantages. As the role of robots and incredibly advanced computer systems permeate throughout the military infrastructure, BCI will provide the means to realize maximum performance from human-computer collaboration enhancing both human and software performance; providing the needed ability to solve and adapt to growing battlespace complexities. Current BCI technology already demonstrates the ability to directly interpret and influence neural activity related to sensory information, as well as the intention to perform motor functions, human cognitive ability, and physiological regulation. Based upon a conservative projection of technological advancement, the impact of portable BCI technology in 2040 will have significant military benefits to include: heightened situational awareness, enhanced autonomous system management, human cognitive enhancement beyond natural abilities, synthetic telepathy, augmented reality/response, improved training techniques and reduced casualty rates with improved medical outcomes. It will be the bidirectional type of BCI, providing two-way communication and influence between brain and computer, which will open the full potential to exploit the powerful communicative and human-machine performance boosting opportunities offered by this technology. The Department of Defense should capitalize on this emerging technology. It should specifically foster the development of bidirectional BCI and pursue the technological or non-technologic means to increase human sensitivity to BCI methods.
II. Brain computer interfacing: a big step towards military mind-control (2013)
III. The Pentagon Wants to Bring Mind-Controlled Tech To Troops (2018)
IV. ‘Mastering The Human Domain’: What’s At Stake With Jade Helm 15 (2015)
V. BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains (2018)
We present BrainNet which, to our knowledge, is the first multi-person non-invasive direct brain-to-brain interface for collaborative problem solving. The interface combines electroencephalography (EEG) to record brain signals and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to deliver information noninvasively to the brain. The interface allows three human subjects to collaborate and solve a task using direct brain-to-brain communication. Two of the three subjects are designated as “Senders” whose brain signals are decoded using real-time EEG data analysis. The decoding process extracts each Sender’s decision about whether to rotate a block in a Tetris-like game before it is dropped to fill a line. The Senders’ decisions are transmitted via the Internet to the brain of a third subject, the “Receiver,” who cannot see the game screen. The Senders’ decisions are delivered to the Receiver’s brain via magnetic stimulation of the occipital cortex. The Receiver integrates the information received from the two Senders and makes a decision using an EEG interface about either turning the block or keeping it in the same position. A second round of the game provides an additional chance for the Senders to evaluate the Receiver’s decision and send feedback to the Receiver’s brain, and for the Receiver to rectify a possible incorrect decision made in the first round. We evaluated the performance of BrainNet in terms of (1) Group-level performance during the game; (2) True/False positive rates of subjects’ decisions; (3) Mutual information between subjects. Five groups, each with three human subjects, successfully used BrainNet to perform the Tetris task, with an average accuracy of 81.25%. Furthermore, by varying the information reliability of the Senders by artificially injecting noise into one Sender’s signal, we investigated how the Receiver learns to integrate noisy signals in order to make a correct decision. We found that Receivers are able to learn which Sender is more reliable based solely on the information transmitted to their brains. Our results raise the possibility of future brain-to-brain interfaces that enable cooperative problem solving by humans using a “social network” of connected brains.
VI. What will this do to me and my brain? Ethical issues in brain-to-brain interfacing (2015)
Recent brain-to-brain interfacing studies provide proof of principle for the feasibility of various forms of direct information transfer between two brains, and may lead to the development of new approaches involving memory, emotions, or senses. What makes brain-to-brain interfaces unique is the transfer of information representing specific messages directly from one brain to another, without involving any activity of the peripheral nervous system or senses. The article discusses ethical issues that arise in neural interfacing. The focus is on the implications that brain-to-brain interfaces may have on the individual at the recipient side.
Keywords: ethics, brain-to-brain interfaces, research ethics, cross species experiments, agency, personal identity
III. Ethical Questions for Brain-to-Brain Communication (2015)
Ethical Questions for Brain-to-Brain Communication
VII. Ethical Issues in Brain–Computer Interface Research, Development, and Dissemination (2012)
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy: June 2012 – Volume 36 – Issue 2 – p 94–99
The steadily growing field of brain–computer interfacing (BCI) may develop useful technologies, with a potential impact not only on individuals, but also on society as a whole. At the same time, the development of BCI presents significant ethical and legal challenges. In a workshop during the 4th International BCI meeting (Asilomar, California, 2010), six panel members from various BCI laboratories and companies set out to identify and disentangle ethical issues related to BCI use in four case scenarios, which were inspired by current experiences in BCI laboratories. Results of the discussion are reported in this article, touching on topics such as the representation of persons with communication impairments, dealing with technological complexity and moral responsibility in multidisciplinary teams, and managing expectations, ranging from an individual user to the general public. Furthermore, we illustrate that where treatment and research interests conflict, ethical concerns arise. On the basis of the four case scenarios, we discuss salient, practical ethical issues that may confront any member of a typical multidisciplinary BCI team. We encourage the BCI and rehabilitation communities to engage in a dialogue, and to further identify and address pressing ethical issues as they occur in the practice of BCI research and its commercial applications.