Things that make you question our future

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
If you want a serious answer, then I can give one. I did a mini research project as a undergraduate on the feasibility of mind-control technology.

My conclusion was that while there was certainly scope for tech involving neural implants, it's basically impossible to do this with 'mind-control beams' as commonly imagined (i.e. working on a normal person with a brain that doesn't already have some sort of receiver device embedded in it, or at least attached to the scalp so that it can stimulate neurons up close). The main reason being that non-ionizing radiation, such as the radiation in the mm-cm wavelength range used for mobile phones, basically does not interact with living tissue unless the intensity is high enough to cause a noticeable warming.

Now mobile transmitters are usually very high up and also located in fenced enclosures, so you're not just going to walk in front of one and get start to feel like you're getting cooked. Even if this did happen through some freak accident, you'd certainly notice it, and it's also hard to see how any sort of signal (let alone a 'suggestion' or 'command') could be encoded in a physical interaction as entropic as simple heating.
What has mind-control got to do with anything? You don't need to be mind-controlled by something for it to have a depressive effect, for instance.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
The main reason being that non-ionizing radiation, such as the radiation in the mm-cm wavelength range used for mobile phones, basically does not interact with living tissue unless the intensity is high enough to cause a noticeable warming.

That's not what this book (which I own) says:

9780367254599.jpg
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
What has mind-control got to do with anything? You don't need to be mind-controlled by something for it to have a depressive effect, for instance.
The point was whether it was likely to have any kind of interaction with neurons, beyond - at intensities far higher than anyone could be exposed to accidentally - simply heating them.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
@Mr. Tea are you aware of just how many wrinkles and red flags there are? This is the first page of references from a single chapter of that book:

1705353020634.png

The author isn't referring to these reams of papers just to lard on the reassurance lol
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
@Mr. Tea are you aware of just how many wrinkles and red flags there are? This is the first page of references from a single chapter of that book:

View attachment 17287

The author isn't referring to these papers just to provide more reassurance lol
But, again, there is no reason why exposure to this radiation would be correlated specifically with social media use. It's there all the time, whether you use Facebook or not.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
But, again, there is no reason why exposure to this radiation would be correlated specifically with social media use. It's there all the time, whether you use Facebook or not.
EXACTLY...the correlations are not with individual social media use but with the changes in background radiation
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
You don't get to have an opinion on this anymore because your state of scientific knowledge is hundreds of papers short and you don't make up for your ignorance by any kind of epistemic humility.
Are you not concerned about exposing yourself to 1.21 jiggerwatts of braincell-killing microwave radiation even as we speak?
 
Top