Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: smart on 16/03/2018 20:34:31
-
Part of my investigation on the roles and effects of ultrasonic neuromodulation of the central nervous system via mobile devices lead me to a key concept known as "neurosurveillance". I urge you people to look up this term and consider how and why this is a real threat to privacy. Notice also that this term is not even listed on Wikipedia yet.
tk
-
"What is neurosurveillance?"
The latest in tkadm30's list of made up things
-
Notice also that this term is not even listed on Wikipedia yet.
Wiki also does not have a page dedicated to the proper care and feeding on unicorns- for the same reason.
-
You're talking about mind-reading, right? Presumably through technological means?
I could actually see that become a threat in the future if brain-computer interfaces ever become commonplace.
Right now, though? No.
-
I could actually see that become a threat in the future if brain-computer interfaces ever become commonplace.
What makes you think that brain-computer interfaces (BCI) is not current technology?
tk
-
What makes you think that brain-computer interfaces (BCI) is not current technology?
tk
It does exist, but it's an immature, niche technology at the moment. I'm talking about a future where device-implanted people can communicate with computers and even other implanted people with the same ease that you search the Internet or have an audible conversation. You're not going to read the average person's mind passively. You are going to need sensors on and/or near their brain for you to even begin doing such a thing.
-
"neurosurveillance" ... is not even listed on Wikipedia yet.
It's covered by these Wikipedia entries ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_broadcasting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_withdrawal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_insertion
-
It does exist, but it's an immature, niche technology at the moment. I'm talking about a future where device-implanted people can communicate with computers and even other implanted people with the same ease that you search the Internet or have an audible conversation. You're not going to read the average person's mind passively. You are going to need sensors on and/or near their brain for you to even begin doing such a thing.
You're living in the past bro.
We are not in the stone age anymore...
tk
-
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
What better way to get good people to do nothing than to ostracize those pointing out the evil and say they are imagining it?
Ask yourself, what if tkadm30 is right?
-
Ask yourself, what if tkadm30 is right?
OK, let's ask that question.
Let's suppose that he's right and that there are "agencies" that can read our thoughts.
To do that, they would need to be able to remotely access and interpret some of the most complex signals available.
That's clearly very useful to, for example that intelligence services.
If they had that ability then they could clearly use it to interpret other large data sets- for example internettraffic.
That's a much easier job for two reasons. There's simply less data on the web than in people's heads, and it's much easier to access- you can just read it off the servers.
So it's clear that, before we could read minds we could "read" the web and glean information about, for example, terrorism.
And, if that was possible, the terrorists and murderers would all be in jail.
They are not
So the technology hasn't reached the stage where we can do the easy job, never mind the hard one.
So, we know that tkadm30 is, in fact, wrong.
This is a science site, it's in the interests of those visiting it that real science is clearly separated from pseudo scientific conspiracy theories, and it's better if there are fewer of those.
So it's right to try to stop people posting balderdash.
So we ridicule them.
Would you like to explain why you think that's a problem?
-
OK, let's ask that question.
Let's suppose that he's right and that there are "agencies" that can read our thoughts.
To do that, they would need to be able to remotely access and interpret some of the most complex signals available.
That's clearly very useful to, for example that intelligence services.
If they had that ability then they could clearly use it to interpret other large data sets- for example internettraffic.
That's a much easier job for two reasons. There's simply less data on the web than in people's heads, and it's much easier to access- you can just read it off the servers.
So it's clear that, before we could read minds we could "read" the web and glean information about, for example, terrorism.
And, if that was possible, the terrorists and murderers would all be in jail.
They are not
So the technology hasn't reached the stage where we can do the easy job, never mind the hard one.
So, we know that tkadm30 is, in fact, wrong.
This is a science site, it's in the interests of those visiting it that real science is clearly separated from pseudo scientific conspiracy theories, and it's better if there are fewer of those.
So it's right to try to stop people posting balderdash.
So we ridicule them.
Would you like to explain why you think that's a problem?
BC, your lack of objectivity and rigor are almost certainly your most obvious weaknesses.
I do however respect your objections, but it is clearly not sufficient enough to convince me about your arguments.
tk
-
OK, let's ask that question.
Let's suppose that he's right and that there are "agencies" that can read our thoughts.
To do that, they would need to be able to remotely access and interpret some of the most complex signals available.
That's clearly very useful to, for example that intelligence services.
If they had that ability then they could clearly use it to interpret other large data sets- for example internettraffic.
That's a much easier job for two reasons. There's simply less data on the web than in people's heads, and it's much easier to access- you can just read it off the servers.
So it's clear that, before we could read minds we could "read" the web and glean information about, for example, terrorism.
And, if that was possible, the terrorists and murderers would all be in jail.
They are not
So the technology hasn't reached the stage where we can do the easy job, never mind the hard one.
So, we know that tkadm30 is, in fact, wrong.
This is a science site, it's in the interests of those visiting it that real science is clearly separated from pseudo scientific conspiracy theories, and it's better if there are fewer of those.
So it's right to try to stop people posting balderdash.
So we ridicule them.
Would you like to explain why you think that's a problem?
BC, your lack of objectivity and rigor are almost certainly your most obvious weaknesses.
I do however respect your objections, but it is clearly not sufficient enough to convince me about your arguments.
tk
Well, if the facts don't convince you, what will?
And if you are not interested in evidence,what point is there to this thread?
Are you admitting that your intention here is "soap-boxing" or preaching?
-
Well, if the facts don't convince you, what will?
The truth is that I have the evidences and the facts...
You don't have nothing objective for me to consider seriously.
Please stop lying and posting about stuff you have no idea about.
tk
-
The truth is that I have the evidences and the facts...
Post them, or shut up.
(Please not that citing your own web page agreeing with yourself is funny, but not evidence.)
-
Post them, or shut up.
I just did. Why don't you tell us why you don't have a clue how the Internet really works?
tk
-
Post them, or shut up.
I just did. Why don't you tell us why you don't have a clue how the Internet really works?
tk
No - you just posted a claim that you have the 'evidences' (as you call it) and the facts. You do get very angry when you are called out don't you?
-
No - you just posted a claim that you have the 'evidences' (as you call it) and the facts. You do get very angry when you are called out don't you?
LOL
What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?
tk
-
No - you just posted a claim that you have the 'evidences' (as you call it) and the facts. You do get very angry when you are called out don't you?
LOL
What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?
tk
I thought that you could read? You made a claim, back it up with evidence.
-
OK. Just one minute please.
Could we all be honest and reveal our corporative, institutional, or governmental affiliations right here?
I work for nobody and not getting paid a dime for doing this investigation.
tk
-
OK. Just one minute please.
Could we all be honest and reveal our corporative, institutional, or governmental affiliations right here?
I work for nobody and not getting paid a dime for doing this investigation.
tk
Ah I see. Playing the conspiracy card then? We argue against us so we must be part of a government/corporate conspiracy? Nuts.
-
You're living in the past bro.
We are not in the stone age anymore...
tk
So you're arguing that we all have mind-reading implants that we don't know about? How and when did that happen?
Could we all be honest and reveal our corporative, institutional, or governmental affiliations right here?
I work for UPS. Do you think they are in on the conspiracy?
I work for nobody.
You don't work at all? Where do you get your money from?
-
Thanks Kryptid. I do appreciate your honesty. :)
Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers to your questions just yet.
Respectfully yours,
tk
-
OK. Just one minute please.
Could we all be honest and reveal our corporative, institutional, or governmental affiliations right here?
I work for nobody and not getting paid a dime for doing this investigation.
tk
I work for a government department.
Since I'm posting this from home, under a fake name, how and why would that government's view affect what I post?
(You may note that not all my views are the same as those of my government)
So, all you have done there is insult the integrity of public sector employees.
In general that's just plain silly (and probably a breach of the site's policy).
It's particularly unwise if you live on government hand outs.
-
I work for a government department.
Since I'm posting this from home, under a fake name, how and why would that government's view affect what I post?
(You may note that not all my views are the same as those of my government)
Thanks for sharing, BC.
I was pretty sure of that since the beginning.
tk
-
Could we all be honest and reveal our corporative, institutional, or governmental affiliations right here?
See ... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit
-
Could we all be honest and reveal our corporative, institutional, or governmental affiliations right here?
See ... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit
Dude, your "rationalwiki.org" stuff is quite suspicious...
Could you just be honest for one minute and tell us who is paying for your work?
I would appreciate that.
tk
-
I work for a government department.
Since I'm posting this from home, under a fake name, how and why would that government's view affect what I post?
(You may note that not all my views are the same as those of my government)
Thanks for sharing, BC.
I was pretty sure of that since the beginning.
tk
OK, so you were sure from the beginning that I'm not a govt shill.
And I have probably pointed out ore of your mistakes than most. So you know that it's not govt action that gets people to post corrections to your posts.
Why bother to ask the question?
-
I work for a government department.
OK, so you were sure from the beginning that I'm not a govt shill.
This is slightly inconsistent, don't you think?
-
I work for a government department.
OK, so you were sure from the beginning that I'm not a govt shill.
This is slightly inconsistent, don't you think?
Did you read the rest of what I posted.
The bit where, while the govt pay my salary, they don't know what I post here?
Did you read the bit about pointlessly insulting the entire public sector?
-
Thanks Kryptid. I do appreciate your honesty. :)
Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers to your questions just yet.
Respectfully yours,
tk
I'm sure you could answer some of them. You know whether or not you have a job. You also know whether or not you believe that the general populace has hidden implants in them.
-
OK, so, now we have found out that it doesn't matter what we do for a living, perhaps we could get back to the point which TheSpoon and I raised.
You say you have evidence.
The truth is that I have the evidences and the facts...
And you have been asked to post it.
Please do so.