Testing Technology: Mind Control!

This is the last post before the start of school. There are a few options available at the start of school. Those will be discussed at a later time. Let's move on to the topic, shall we?

This probably is not the best time, but I am going to start a new series on the blog called Testing Technology, in which we will explore what possibilities we can uncover using the technology we already have and the laws of Physics and Quantum Mechanics which we have discovered thus far on the blog. The discussions in this series of posts will be like the Star Trek Transporter post. Can we do it? How?

This time the topic is mind control. Can we gain control of the minds of other living things? How? Let's find out.

Obviously the human brain is very complicated and nobody really knows exactly how it works. We need to start with what we already know how to do. Supposedly the brain functions via electricity and chemicals. What has electricity and chemicals? Computers!

We can command robots to do things we want them to by putting together certain electric wires or certain chemicals. We can already control non living things. Computers seem to be the key to the mind.

We know that the human brain can be connected to computers because that's how bionic arms work. Your brain still sends the same electrical impulses to the arm, and that computer reads your electrical impulses to perform the commands your brain has sent! But controlling computers is one thing. Controlling the brain itself is something else altogether.

However, we can't be too far away. However, controlling the brain is a monumental task. The organ is extremely complex. We need more information in order to specifically figure out how to control it. However, I think it can be done.

Here is the simplest version of mind control that I can think of.

Step 1: Overload brain. This will cause the brain to shut down.
Step 2: Remove brain. Be sure not to damage any other parts of the body unless you intend on replacing them.
Step 3: Insert computer. This computer would sort of replicate a brain by being able to send out electrical impulses and chemicals. If we can receive impulses with the bionic arm, we can simply take those impulses that we received at first, and have the computer send those impulses. Now you can send the impulses to other parts of the system.
Step 4: Reboot the system: Have the computer start sending out impulses to get the body moving again. You now have control.

Congratulations! You have control! Or do you?

This is not really mind control, this is mind replacement. You have total control of the body of that person, but really what have we accomplished? We might as well have built a robot!

So this version is not practical and we did not really acquire control of the brain. However, we did prove many things by doing this. We can figure out how to send out impulses from the computer. We have in a sense built a brain. Now that we know how the brain works, we can figure out how to control it without removing the brain.

We need to find the decision engine of the brain. The portion that gives the person freedom of choice. We think that portion of the brain is the frontal lobe. This section is responsible for planning, organizing, problem solving, selective attention, personality and a variety of "higher cognitive functions" including behavior and emotions. According to http://www.waiting.com/brainanatomy.html "A Guide to Brain Anatomy". This map is also from the site.


The cerebellum is the part that is in charge of movement. Walking, talking, eating, etc. This could also be important in mind control.

The brain allows for different types of mind control. We could control the decisions of the brain which would be the key to the body. Or we could just control the movement portion, controlling all of the movements of the body while the person is stuck thinking about what is going on. A much more torturous method if I do say so myself!

How can we do this? How do we take over the brain without killing the living person inside of it? After the mind control, we may want to undo the interaction. Therefore we need to keep the old brain intact. With our technology I think we can manage this.

We would need to send in some sort of small remote controlled robot to go into the brain and send impulses to control the body. The only problem is that the old brain would be struggling for control. Maybe we could have the robot insert some sort of anesthesia into the frontal lobe. However, we would have to make sure the anesthesia doesn't spread everywhere or else nothing in the body would work. I'm not exactly sure how we could do that.

What do you think? Is mind control possible? How can we do it? Comment with your ideas and opinions.

Please note that I am not in favor of introducing mind control to the average human. I just want to know if it is possible.

Does the universe need life to "exist"?

I will be on vacation for a week starting Thursday. Therefore I am going to leave you with this topic.

Does the universe need life to "exist"?

If there was no universe, then there would be no life. The universe sets the stage for life to live. That's quite clear. Life does not occur in nothing. There must be something for life to live in, and that happens to be our universe.

But does the universe need us? Does the universe need life to actually exist?

Don't answer this question too quickly. Right now you are probably thinking, "No, why would the universe need us? We will probably cause more damage to it than help!"

But really, why does the universe exist? You may say, "It just does" but really, why would the universe need to exist? What difference does it make if the universe is around or not?

Think again. Why does it exist?

To support life.

That is probably the only thing that the universe accomplishes by existing, is supporting life like us. That is its only purpose. It only exists for us. The universe as far as we know does nothing else with any direction.

The big bang. Massive explosion of "stuff" into the vast nothingness that surrounds it. The forming of nonliving material. It cools, and things align into systems. Galaxies full of solar systems that are full of planets. Planets that contain material required to support life. It all exists for life! Why else would it even happen?

We go back to the original question: Does the universe need life to "exist"? I say it does! Without life, there is no purpose of the universe! It would accomplish nothing in it's being, so it wouldn't "exist". Think of it this way:

What does it mean to exist? To exist means to have animation or life. If the universe does not "live", then it doesn't exist. It's not really... there.

It's a tough thought, isn't it? That something really doesn't exist if there is no life to witness it. Think of it a different way.

On a distant planet named Distant Planet (how imaginative I am today) a rock tumbles down a cliff. This rock causes a massive chain reaction which causes many major cliffs on the planet to crumble to dust. There is no life on Distant Planet. After millions of years Distant Planet is finally swallowed up by Distant Star, never to be seen again. Did anything happen?

Technically, stuff happened, but since no life saw it, there was absolutely no significance to the event. Did Distant Planet ever exist at all? Not really. The fact is that there probably was a Distant Planet out there somewhere in the universe, but it never existed because there was no life to witness it.

I am quite positive that the story above did not help anyone. I am sure it only further confused your train of thought. You were once sure that the universe didn't need us, but now you are hopefully starting to think that maybe it does.

Here's a better example. Does Santa Claus exist?
You might say he doesn't. Can you prove it? Not really, but you might say that we haven't seen or heard him, so he doesn't exist. You have basically just proven my point by saying that, then. Santa Claus doesn't exist because we did not witness it.
Does the Tooth Fairy exist? Never saw it, so it doesn't exist. Proves my point.
Does another universe exist? Not to us it doesn't. Now you might say "It's possible for there to be another universe! Don't rule that option out!". Guess what? It is also possible for there to be a Santa Claus and a tooth fairy. Don't rule it out.

I think that clears things up. Nothing exists to us unless we see it. Or unless we truly believe in it, in the case of Santa Claus. It may "exist" to us, even though it may not exist to others. However, without life, nothing would exist. Enjoy that thought.

Does Technology Help or Hurt Mankind?

Understanding that this question could be considered more philosophical than scientific, it has quite a bit to do with science, and very much applies to our world. Mankind ever since the stone age has been technologically advancing, making more discoveries about life and the universe and creating many more inventions. Does this technology help or hurt the chances of the survival of mankind?

First we have to define technology. Computers come up in our minds when we think technology, but really technology gets a lot simpler. Isn't the wooden club technology? It is an invention of sorts, created by humanity. Therefore, when considering if technology helps or hurts mankind, we do need to consider the primitive as well as the modern.

Let's start at the early age of man. There were the neanderthals and the homosapiens. Neanderthal and homosapien were both considered primitive man, but each had different characteristics. Neanderthals were stronger and had thicker bones, but homo sapiens were smarter and quicker. Both survived until the ice age. At the ice age, the feeding patterns changed. The animals that man ate had to move to survive. Neanderthal did not follow the food and ended up dying out. Homo sapien on the other hand adapted and survived the ice age. Although they weren't the strongest species, they were the smartest, allowing them to survive. Homo sapien then became the only specie of man. This shows that, as Charles Darwin said, "It is not the strongest of species that survive, but the ones most responsive to change".

Early humans used tools like stone axes and knives to get food and resources. They also used fire to cook meat and do other things. This technology I would say was vital to the survival of humanity. Without tools, life for the human would have been quite difficult, and they may have not been able to survive.

Technology begins to become questionable 1700 BC, when man begins to fight man. Spears and chariots are used to attack other people and expand their territory. Man is now man's greatest enemy. Technology is used to gain advantage over other humans and expand their empire. Weaponry becomes very important to humanity. As technology advances, more and more weaponry is invented, but also more and more luxury items. People begin to build homes of great comfort and luxury furniture.

Is there anything wrong with luxury? The technology helps humanity to live in comfort. Some may argue that luxury causes laziness in humanity, while others argue that laziness is a natural human attribute. When the bell rings at school, you are not going to take a long way to get to the door for no reason. Most likely you will be "lazy" and go the shortest way to the door. I think that although laziness in many cases is a problem, it makes sense in other cases.

As technology improves, people have to do less to survive. In that way, technology greatly increases our survival chances. However, technology begins to become extremely questionable in the atomic era. Nuclear bombs are capable of demolishing entire cities. If we aren't careful, we could end up destroying the entire planet! At what point does technology become bad?

Although technology has led to such a monstrous danger, technology can also stop the problem. We can use technology to find a way to stop the nuclear bomb and save the Earth. Therefore, does technology help or hurt mankind? I think it helps our chances of survival as long as scientists always stay on top of the dangers that threaten mankind's survival.

Why ask this question? If technological advances are a threat to our species, then the government should halt technological advances. However, I think that technology will keep itself in check.

There are many different branches of this topic that you can comment on. Should the gov. stop technological advances? Should the gov. regulate certain technologies? Do we need to get rid of technology altogether and return to the stone age to maintain our survival? Comment with ideas and opinions.