IUBio

Terms Other Than "Mind Control" (Revised Jan 22, 2003)

John Michael Williams jwill at AstraGate.net
Wed Jan 22 14:47:24 EST 2003


"Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E2E38F1.50BEA6FB at datafilter.com>...
> Terms Other Than Mind Control
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> This article is a re-edited version of an earlier mailing list
> article.  The subject is whether the term "mind control" does more
> harm than good, as far as activism to educate the public and expose
> the many abuses in that area.  The nature of the crimes and abuses
> is not at issue.  The focus here is word usage.  This version was 
> last revised on Jan. 22, 2003.
> 
> Connotational Baggage
> 
> One problem with the term "mind control" is the "kook" association.
> ...
> 
> Many of the microwave hearing articles deal with the issues of "what
> are the psychophysical correlates of the beam's physical parameters."
> Knowing this one can then technologically create the *physical* event,
> causing the corresponding *psychophysical* event in the person's
> "mind."  That is, you can modulate a microwave beam with the right
> pulsed waveform so that if you "illuminate" a person with the beam he
> or she perceives as sound whatever signal has been modulated onto it
> -- including voice signals.
> ...

Allen, can you support this with evidence?

According to Guy, et al (Annals of the NY Academy of
Sciences, 1975,  v. 247, 194 - 218, Discussion), it
is not possible to transmit voices.

I've studied this problem, and I have good theoretical
reasons for believing that voice (or music) direct
transmission should not be feasible.  The only way
I would think might work would be by modulation of
pulses spaced in time by maybe 500 us or more -- it might
be possible to understand, but it would not seem to 
be a voice.  I think Morse code might be possible.

The underlying problem is that the wavelength of 
microwaves known to produce "microwave hearing" 
is many times too big to synthesize a cochlear
response corresponding to the sound of a voice.

I'd change this view, but only on the basis of 
good evidence.  Nothing is impossible, but
this kind of "control" does not seem possible.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net