This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Elaborating.
Post by
MyTie
This article is fascinating and wonderful
. If no one else has heard about this kind of thing, it really is amazing. The electrical signals inside the brain are actually physically depressing. I heard about an early experiment into sending an electrical impulse into the brain, and the immediate effect onto a person with psychological issues, and it is the stuff of the future... well... I guess not anymore.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Elaborating.
Hmmm, I don't see how this proves your point, but I can say something myself. To begin with, why are these kids in this position? Most likely their parents are not making enough money to support them. That or parents are drug-addicts and in that case Child Services should step in. Why don't they have money? Maybe, because they cannot find a job. Why? I see two potential reasons. One is outsourcing to countries with cheaper labor. This will always happen in a free market, because producers are looking for decrease in their costs. Good for producers, bad for nation. Government should intervene. Second reason is that when recession kicked in, parents were fired so that companies executives could afford their golden parachutes'. I would like to see how you can justify this as fault of government intervention.The starvation rate in the US is phenominally low for a reason. The government gives food stamps. Local charities will give out food to anyone that asks. Churches in any community have set up programs to give food directly to people that need it with little to no notice. The only reason kids go hungry is out of irresponsibility of the parent. That needs to be directly addressed by the community and by government. Raising the kid is not the responsibility of government. I understand there is a problem, but raising the kid is not the solution.
This article is fascinating and wonderful
. If no one else has heard about this kind of thing, it really is amazing. The electrical signals inside the brain are actually physically depressing. I heard about an early experiment into sending an electrical impulse into the brain, and the immediate effect onto a person with psychological issues, and it is the stuff of the future... well... I guess not anymore.
Call me paranoid, but, this is the first steps on path to mind control.This isn't any closer to mind control than prescription drugs. This has a genuine chance of helping people. It doesn't tell them how to think, just stimulates a part of the brain that is physically hindered. It is like a wheelchair, or any other device that helps a part of the body work. The brain is just a part of the body, and it has its own weaknesses, very physical in nature. My brain has a very very hard time with memory, particularly with names, facial recognition, and long term memory. I wouldn't object to a low risk implant of a prosthesis that "fixed" my memory problem. I can't tell you how embarrassing it is to not be able to remember a name of a person that JUST told me for the 30th time, or not remember the name of the street I live on, or my phone number, or my birthday. It strikes when I least expect it. It's like, I know it, and I know I know it, and it is on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't quite "get" it... ya know? It's like that actor in that movie you like, and you can't quite remember his name. It's like that, only more frequently. Don't tell me it is something that I can "work on", and "overcome" and "just get better". It isn't. Tell a blind person to just use his eyes more. It just doesn't work like that all the time. Memory is something that you can get better at, true, just like you can get better at running, unless you are talking to someone paralyzed from the waist down. I'm not just "bad" at running. I've got some serious problems with memory.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Didn't take very long for Romney to
come to the defence
of Hilary Rosen's comments.
Romney: Welfare mothers would be better off with "the dignity of work".
Hilary Rosen: Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life".
Either raising children is dignified work or it isn't.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You seem to miss that bit about that it might not be irresponsibility (if this is true, then Child Services must do their job), but the way economy is working right now, those parents are out of job. And since, they cannot get one on this free market, government must intervene,They do, though. Food stamps. Charities. What I am saying is that with 0 income, any US citizen can still feed their kids. If they don't, those kids need to be taken away. Government shouldn't raise the kids for the parents.
Well, the way I see it.
Step 1: Implant those devices in your brain to stimulate it for a certain effect.
Step 2: Stimulate different part of your brain making you do whatever they want.
Things put in your brain are twice as scarier than anything else put in your body.
This isn't based in reality. Do you think wheelchairs are used to control people and send them where they want? Do you think wheelchairs are the first steps toward full body machines that turn us into slaves?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Fine. So here are options for the parents (this also comes from article gamer linked):
1: Stay at home, raise your kids, get food stamps to feed them
or
2: Go work and let your government (via education) and TV (or Internet) raise your kid
Which one you prefer? I'm not so "all or nothing". I believe in using the government as a tool to help me raise my kids. I don't think it should be possible to let the government do the job completely, but it is. That's what I'm getting at. I spend extraordinary time with my kids, one on one. Other parents don't because they don't need to. I believe that is the problem with kids these days, and in the big picture, with parents. Parents weren't raised by their parents very well, speaking about society in general.
Your analogy is bad. Wheelchairs only control your movement, but not your hands, mouth and head. If someone drives you up in wheelchair and gives you gun to shoot someone, you at least can resist. But, if there is device in your brain, they will just stimulate the proper part and make you shoot the guy and you might even enjoy it. Of course, we are not that far in the future, but from this point it is close. As for memory problems, I suggest some sort of Iodine pills, helped me through my finals in school.
We aren't that close, not at all. A wheelchair is as close to a robotic slave suit as this is to a mind control device. I stand by my analogy.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Just to throw in a little real science with all of this back and forth.
@Boron- that's a huge leap of logic. Let me explain- thoughts and emotions are different things. Very often, your emotional state has a lot to do with different chemicals in your brain and the rest of your body. It's the reason women can become irritable during certain times of the month, when their hormone levels change. There are measurable chemicals that are released when you feel love that create a sense of euphoria, and when you're scared your body releases adrenaline which has a noticeable physical effect.
Because we know that emotions have a physical/chemical component, we can do things to alter them. Antidepressants and some of the chemicals in foods (like chocolate) can be used to enhance mood and fight some of the chemical causes of depression. People can become addicted to adrenaline, and will get into extreme sports or dangerous activities to get their "rush". In this case, scientists have identified pleasure centers in the brain- areas that are stimulated by pleasant thoughts to release the chemicals associated with being happy. The electrical impulses aren't making them "think happy thoughts." They causing the part of the brain that releases the chemicals that make you happy to release those chemicals.
Thought is a very different thing- thoughts can cause certain emotions, and being in a certain emotional state can affect the direction of your thoughts, but there is no specific chemical you release only when thinking about chocolate ice cream, or whether to vote Republican or Democrat. There's nothing in this science that would tie a specific stimulus to a specific thought, because it doesn't work like that. They operate in different ways. The closest thing to what you're suggesting that would be possible with this would be a level of "emotion control." They couldn't make someone think something is alright to do, or implant a specific idea. While I understand your concern, the manner in which you are describing it is unrealistic and impossible.
@MyTie- While it's true that something like this couldn't be used as mind control, it COULD be something used to condition people into certain types of behavior. If a person always feels depressed when they are performing leisure activities, and always get a rush of endorphins and adrenaline when they're working their job at the factory, they'd be more likely to want to work rather than "relax." If someone felt horribly depressed when they were attending religious services, but when they went to atheist seminars they got a huge buzz, it would begin to have an effect on where they wanted to be and how they valued those ideas in terms of the quality of their life.
Of course, these are things that technically could be done right now through other reward/punishment structures when you're a kid, and through different drugs if someone had access to what you took. This isn't a unique tool in how it could work. What I think seems the most possibly red-flag-raising part of this to people is the idea that they could be implanted, and just left there. Something electrical could easily become something remote....maybe as a way to make criminals feel bad when they broke the law?
I'm not saying that it's a likely outcome. But I do see how it could, on a technological level, pave the way for technologies down the road that could be used to condition people on a daily basis without their awareness. It's not mind control, but it could use physical responses associated with pleasant and unpleasant emotions to drive people into specific behavior patterns with reward and punishment incentives.
Again, not saying that they would do this. But very often the government does things with technology that they are expressly not allowed to legally, and they often cross the legal line in matters they consider "national security," so I can understand people who would be a little wary of this technology's existence.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
And Also, to the feeding kids thing, Boron- I don't think you are understanding MyTie. He is saying that right now, regardless of whether their parents have a job or don't, the government and different community organizations already provide food for everyone who cannot afford it. He is saying that if the parents are not feeding their kids, it's because they haven't signed up for food stamps, haven't picked up food at the local food banks, etc.
He's not saying it's the parents fault for not having a job. He's saying it's the parents fault for not making a phone call to get their kids the free food that is available even without a job. He's saying that the parents who don't feed their kids don't even put out that small amount of effort. They're either taking the food stamps and trading them illegally for something else (which many people do), they're so drug-addicted or mentally ill that they cannot function on a level where they should have their kids, or for some other reason they are either ignorant of or ignoring the ways that they could feed their kids for free, and instead are just having the kids skip meals.
Post by
gamerunknown
There's nothing in this science that would tie a specific stimulus to a specific thought, because it doesn't work like that.
If you're worried about thought control,
this
would be a more reasonable step towards it.
They're either taking the food stamps and trading them illegally for something else (which many people do), they're so drug-addicted or mentally ill that they cannot function on a level where they should have their kids, or for some other reason they are either ignorant of or ignoring the ways that they could feed their kids for free, and instead are just having the kids skip meals.
Big government intervention solution: take the kids away from the parents, raise them at the taxpayers expense. OMG SOCIALISM.
Deregulation/free market solution: define children as property until the age of 18, then loose them upon the world.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Gamer- Right, because clearly anyone who thinks capitalism is an effective economic model thinks that children should be property, and anyone who thinks that the government should intervene in children's neglect thinks the government should intervene in everything.
If only people could...I don't know...have opinions about things that didn't rigidly conform to a specific published archetype, so that they could decide that one type of solution works in some problems, and a different type of solution works for different problems. I guess a girl can dream...
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Boron- I agree that social services =/= disciplining of kids. They're totally two different things. There are a lot of people who don't discipline their kids, don't discipline them enough or well, abuse them and cause behavior problems, or who feel that the school should be raising the kids for them. That's a social issue, and not an economic/welfare issue. I was just pointing out that, in terms of feeding people, we do have that covered, and if kids are skipping meals the parents are not taking advantage of what's available.
@Boron- I understand your thinking, but this technology is no where near as advanced as that. Not even close. It would be like seeing someone throw a stick of dynamite into the water to kill some fish, and worrying about how this technology could be used to create a weapon that would pinpoint exactly where every fish in the ocean is, and would direct explosives to kill all of them at once to ruin the ecosystem. They sound similar on the surface, but the one is much less technically complex than the other. Right now, we can see general areas where SOMETHING happens when you are happy, and we discovered that when you lob electricity at it, that same something happens.
What we'd need to be able to do, if we were going to do what you're worried about, is to be able to accurately map exactly what nerves connect to which specific muscles, map exactly where the impulse originates in the brain for every little variation in pressure and direction, find a way to simulate those impulses in a much more fine-tuned way, and to also interfere with the person sending their own impulses to counteract this.
The science just isn't there to do what you're worried about.
Post by
gamerunknown
If only people could...I don't know...have opinions about things that didn't rigidly conform to a specific published archetype
I know MyTie threw some qualifiers in there, but...
Simply stated, government taking over something doesn't generally help. While on the surface, it may look like government is producing something out of thin air, and riding its valliant steed, in shining armor, to save the poor peasants from the evils of the world, it is actually just unduly burdening the economy, and denying the market the ability to self regulate.
Just pointing out that government enabling in this instance can be cured by government regulation and that the free market solution is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Forgive me if I don't want to address everything that was said this morning in my absence. If I miss something too major, let me know.
I will address this topic:This whole feeding thing appeared to be MyTie's example how government intervention is bad in education. But, it is more like we are dealing with parenting skills than government, so yeah, I don't see government fault in people no teaching there kids.
I don't feel that social benefits for kids and parenting skills are completely independent, especially in the grand scope of society. We live in a time when parents can send their kids to federally subsidized daycare or school, government provided after school activities, arriving and departing on government provided transportation. When they get home, government provides the meals, the healthcare, and most basic needs. The government rates the television programs kids watch, and the games they play.
In the end, not much really HAS to be done by parents. So, many don't. It isn't government's fault. It is parents. I'm just saying that government is an enabler. I don't feel that parents should be allowed to hurt their kids, or neglect their kids. I feel that if parents don't care for their kids, those kids should be taken away and given to parents that will care. I don't think government should be taking care of kids. I believe parents should be. I think a root part of the problem is that parents want government to take care of their kids, too. I think it is sad.
The fact that parents don't spend as much time with their kids as they should, they don't do an effective job at disciplining the kids, and neither does their government provided caretakers. In the end, you have wild kids, who aren't disciplined enough to learn effectively.
That's my only point, really. This isn't some complicated anti-government rant, as much as it is a desire for parents to do a better job.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.