Military AI Supercomputer Mind Monitoring: What I have learned

This subject has been dealt with extensively in the Star Trek series. Allegorically the Borg are not much more than a connected super computer. Apparently the only defense against the Borg are the tactics used by races like the 8472 who's thought patterns are too fluid to be successfully mapped.

The latest incarnation of my remote neural monitoring video sure to change sometime in the future
Psychic Download version

reply to post by tmk81


I'm sorry... Apparently I got you confused with some of the other people in this thread. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my James Tily Matthews post, and it seems you have indeed thought this out. Hopefully I'll have the time to respond in more detail about alleged electromagnetic weapons that simulate voices... To date I haven't seen anything to credibly suggest to me that such technology exists.

I sorted through some of this on different days and thats probably not all really going on. Second line.

That is all wrong. You (all of you) should not write about mind control things. The more is written around that, the less is the weight of the information. I know, it is hard to think, when there is no brain, but try to understand this: It's too late. The AI has planned this. This is his work. All activities around that should be immadiately stopped. Just my opinion. Just think about that... when minority is reporting an issue around mind control, the majority will this issue get it like the issue of schizophrenia. It's a new trend. The more about that, the less is the credit. Sure, it's too late, but it seems that it was correct, to talk everyone about that. There was not another chance to handle that. Just remember. Activities around that sucks.

reply to post by mito8

Hopefully I'll have the time to respond in more detail about alleged electromagnetic weapons that simulate voices... To date I haven't seen anything to credibly suggest to me that such technology exists.

These voices are usually used for harrasment and it is indeed the AI that generates these voices. It is called as the sound engine and I have personal experience of using this engine (btw I am not being harrased)

This is happening to many individuals around the world, it is basically intrusion of privacy, against which they have no protection. ( I am not suggesting anytihing directly at tmk)

Your thread content reminds me of work meetings.

Buzzword bingo, no content.

reply to post by tmk81

My belief is the shadow government is a transnational group with connections to multiple governments.

tmk I can tell you that the shadow govt is nothing but the rich elite (bankers, "turners") etc, you can call them what you may...good word to pacify others would be one starting with M

And I may add that while they are directing your thoughts and actions, it is possible that the "awareness" also is being generated by them? This is what I call a complete hijack of a person's consicious and sub-conscious mind.

reply to post by tmk81


Why do you need to organise people to bring about the apocalypse. Wouldn't it be quicker & easier just to lob a nuclear weapon at Russia.

reply to post by SystemResistor


True and if the US really does have a quantum super computer, then It's safe to say that they're not the only ones. I bet other advanced civilizations throughout the universe have computers that are even more powerful and I bet they are already aware of our existence & tampering with the matrix.

reply to post by kindred

True and if the US really does have a quantum super computer, then It's safe to say that they're not the only ones. I bet other advanced civilizations throughout the universe have computers that are even more powerful and I bet they are already aware of our existence & tampering with the matrix.

There is nothing like a quantum computer invented yet...but I know better....

The US does not have a quantum computer, nor will it ever have one....maybe 500 years down the line....we may have something similar to it....but we have to master teleportation first.....

Refer to my other posts in other threads and see what I have to say about this.....

reply to post by tmk81

Thank you for sharing this information with everyone. You might be interested in reading my thread here:
Skynet and Cyberdyne are real, and they equal trouble

I fully agree with you that some form of electronic mind control is going on, you can evidence it even in this forum. My family was watching local Columbus Ohio news last night, they were talking about the recent police involved shootings. It seems that people are taking on the cops in a shooting match.
Mayor backs police in shootings

This, along with other things I hear people doing have convince me it is happening. Some of us, thankfully, seem to have a built in firewall that blocks this out. Even the little town I live in has had three shootings, two which caused a death, happen in the past few weeks.

I think there is an Agenda here, people. Mind control some people to do things, shoot at the police, shoot innocent people on the street for no reason, and then TPTB have good reason to ban guns.

Prior to 1987, almost every state in America either prohibited the carrying of concealed handguns or permitted concealed-carry under a licensing system that granted government officials broad discretionary power over the decision to grant a permit. The key feature of the new concealed-carry laws is that the government must grant the permit as soon as any citizen can satisfy objective licensing criteria. Concealed-carry reform reaffirms the basic idea that citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminal attack. And since criminals can strike almost anywhere at any time, the last thing government ought to be doing is stripping citizens of the most effective means of defending themselves. Carrying a handgun in public may not be for everyone, but it is a right that government ought to respect.

link source

WE have to let Congress know, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that we will never, ever give up right to bear, and carry arms to protect ourselves. Once they take away our guns, only the police, and the criminals will have guns. Take that to heart, people.

reply to post by tmk81

beautiful video. are you aware of john c. lilly? in his ketamine trips he claimed to have encountered a malevolent artificial intelligence he called SSI (solid state intelligence), second only to an organic alien intelligence. according to him, 'the network of computation-capable solid state systems (electronics) engineered by humans will eventually develop (or has already developed) into an autonomous life-form.' (wikipedia). could this be what you have interfaced with?

my point is that this intelligence may be non-human, existing as a consciousness in human-made infrastructure. in this scenario, all electronic infrastructure is facilitating the existence of this ai, not just intelligence agency and contractor infrastructure, though they may be aware of it and taking advantage of it.

This is a double-edged sword, because, if you are able to realise that the symptoms you are experiencing are pure dellusion, then you would have the strongest possible mental "shield" imaginable - however, your belief in the factuality of the phenomenon concretises its effects upon you.

As a disclaimer, it is not to say that what you are experiencing is not real in any way, it is simply to say that your mind will amplify what you are experiencing as you become fixated upon the illusions. When you can block it out, your protection is that you are able to tell your mind that the phenomenon are of no consequence to your existence, and as a result, you mind will eventually prevent your subconsciousness from feeding you those signals.

Personally, I have also had experience with hallucinatory phenomenon, sometimes the voices were definitley of a "recorded" nature, and even the hallucinations become similar to animations, not to mention the "synchronicity" and the modulation of ambient sounds into various "voices".

Finally, to say that these "computers" have control is difficult to say, becuase, a computer can "predict" actions, and even when 99.99% accurate, it is not actually behind the occurence of said actions.

By the way, there is a website, reddit.com/r/AskScience

I talked to some actual neuroscientists on there yesterday

And they said... thought reading isn't possible, with satellites, or even with devices on Earth.

Here is the full conversation

Me: Hello, moderators. I posted a question to /r/AskScience, and it seems to have been caught in the spam filter. Could you let it through? Thank you.

Here is the thread:

www.reddit.com...

Brain_Doc82: We can't "read thoughts" with technology located here on earth, so no, it is not possible to "read thoughts" using satellites.

Me: Have you not seen 60 Minutes' special, "Reading Your Mind"...?

www.youtube.com...

Brain_Doc82: No, I haven't. And no matter what that video says, at present, there is no way to "read thoughts". I assume that video discusses the ability of functional neuroimaging to make inferences about a person's emotional state or even judge their reactions to a given stimuli based on BOLD signal, however that is "making inferences" not "reading thoughts", and the differences are HUGE.

ipokebrains: The computer is not reading a person's mind.

Basically what's happening is this:

You put a person in a scanner and ask them to think about a certain few objects. A lot.

Then you record what their brain activity looks like. For every person this will be totally different, so you have to take a lot of images of each specific person thinking about each specific object.

Then you go play with things in a computer. You essentially try to find the similarities when YOU KNOW that people were thinking about object A. This gives you some kind of average of what this specific person's brain looks like when it's focussed on object A in this particular task.

Then you run things backwards - instead of knowing which image belongs to which object, you try and predict which ones do based on these great average templates of what a particular part of this specific person's brain looks like doing this one thing. The one that 'matches' best is likely to be the one the person was thinking of. This is all done on a computer.

That's it - they aren't reading minds at all. They are training a computer to look at pixels in imaging scans and running big correlation programs based on hundreds of hours of training templates they have stored for a particular person, and a particular object, in a particular context.

If you change even one tiny aspect of the experiment - the person, thinking about even a slightly different coloured object, or even running new trials with the same person sometimes, or a thousand other things, this whole thing no longer works.

Me: Well yeah. Obviously, there has to be a database of objects, and each person's brain pattern is slightly different.

But how isn't that thought reading?

You could take a person, have them think of loads of different things, and build up their database with millions of objects, words etc, and you could therefore read their mind.

All the world is... is objects, colours etc.

ipokebrains: Sure, but that's not all your thoughts are. To get anywhere near your 'conscious thinking' you would essentially have to follow someone around all day every day with a scanner of some description while imaging every part of their brain as it develops and is shaped by experience. Basically model and copy their brain patterns as they develop - and each person would be entirely different and individual so you'd have to do that for everyone.

Problems with this other than the obvious? The technology doesn't even close to exist. The imaging technique used in this study extremely limited, both in terms of resolution and mobility. It's basically only good at looking at rough activation of large, genral brain areas and misses all detail in terms of neuronal activity. Consciousness and 'thinking' as you know it are extremely sparse, distributed processes, so this kind of scan would totally miss them. You also need to be lying perfectly still in a massive pieve of equipment in a hospital to use it.

Then there's the computing power required to process all of this - it takes months of programming and analysis.

So there is simply no way that we're anywhere near the technology or basic knowledge about the brain that it would take to truly 'read minds' - let alone from space.

AboveTopSecret ran out of space. Here is the continued conversation.

dearsomething:

Obviously, there has to be a database of objects, and each person's brain pattern is slightly different.

Much more different than expected, even across age-matched neurotypicals. When you go outside of that realm, becomes more and more and more dissimilar.

But how isn't that thought reading?

Just by closing your eyes and then opening them causes neurons to kind of go nuts in the visual cortices. Due to them going nuts there will be an influx of readable electrical and magnetic signatures. Magnetic in terms of field potentials and paramagnetic properties due to expended glucose from blood rushing to your visual system. Simply by opening your eyes. Any and all technologies we have we show this. Many out of field researchers consider this "brain readings" when in fact it is not.

You could take a person, have them think of loads of different things, and build up their database with millions of objects, words etc, and you could therefore read their mind.

No, you can't. EEG and fMRI are not sensitive enough. Furthermore, to generate clearer (higher spatial resolution) fMRI (at a weak temporal resolution) would require enough harddrive space, per person, closely approaching the size used on supercomputers. And that could be for just one task. Imagine millions of tasks.

All the world is... is objects, colours etc.

And the brain responds to those objects and colors with electrial and magnetic signals, rushes of blood, transport of glucose and a whole host of thousands of other things we understand and know with at least thousands of other things we don't understand and don't know.

Also, visual perception is not strictly "thoughts", neither are recalled memories.

Me: See, this is where I think you're arguing over technicals.

You're saying recalled memories aren't thoughts.... and you're talking about reading all of our thoughts.

But if just the strongest thoughts, or just sentences/words were read, think of how useful that could be. I don't see why you couldn't think a sentence in your head and have it relayed.

There is a CBS News 60 Minutes clip showing words recalled with a machine.

Also see this: www.slashgear.com...

ren5311: You are far overstating the potential applications for any of these techniques. This is why we use primary literature and not popular reporting as sources. Go read the original papers.

Dearsomething has answered your questions, and he is arguably the most qualified moderator or panelist here to do so. As a fellow neuroscientist, I agree with him completely for what that's worth. If you don't accept his answer, you are simply trying to defend your personal theory against the qualified opinion of an expert.

This is not the purpose of AskScience.

Me: So, the futurists in this BBC article are wrong?

www.bbc.co.uk...

Brain_Doc82: The folks who are responding to you here are legitimate neuroscience researchers who read (and conduct) the actual scientific studies that result in those popular press articles and videos, we don't need to see or read them. If you don't want to believe what we're telling you, that's fine, you don't have to. But let's please stop this discussion; it is clogging up our modmail system. Thanks, have a good one.

I can't help thinking these two threads should be linked:

Hard Evidence for Simulation Hypothesis Uncovered....

One sounds curiously like it has something to do with the other.

although this post is very old does anyone have any new information about ai's? im not talking about the civilian ones but the quantum ones this is some very interesting stuff i cant seem to find any new information about any of this stuff