• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

At What Point is Manipulation Mind-Control?

INRM

Philosopher
I
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
5,505
Okay, this is not meant to be a far fetched discussion.

There are a lot of things that allow a person to manipulate another person. Whether it be a variety of advertising methods, persuasiveness, fear-mongering, intimidation, use of smells, sounds, sights, chemicals, medicines and so forth.

The question is at what point does manipulation cross the line into mind-control? I think we could all agree that if had a device that could take control of your brain, and make it operate in such a way to allow me to control every aspect of your behavior; make you do what I want to without you even being aware of the fact that you were being manipulated (you either had no memory of it, or simply felt it was your own decision)?
 
INRM said:
Okay, this is not meant to be a far fetched discussion.

There are a lot of things that allow a person to manipulate another person. Whether it be a variety of advertising methods, persuasiveness, fear-mongering, intimidation, use of smells, sounds, sights, chemicals, medicines and so forth.

The question is at what point does manipulation cross the line into mind-control?
Click to expand...
There is no "point" at which it crosses the line. Manipulation is a sort of mind control. So what?

I think we could all agree that if had a device that could take control of your brain, and make it operate in such a way to allow me to control every aspect of your behavior; make you do what I want to without you even being aware of the fact that you were being manipulated (you either had no memory of it, or simply felt it was your own decision)?
Click to expand...

You think we can all agree to what? You think we can all agree that if you had a device that could do all these things... what?
 
Roboramma

There is no "point" at which it crosses the line.
Click to expand...

But manipulation comes in degrees

Manipulation is a sort of mind control. So what?
Click to expand...

What point does it reach a state at which it would be considered able to override a person's will without their knowledge?
 
INRM said:
What point does it reach a state at which it would be considered able to override a person's will without their knowledge?
Click to expand...


What exactly are you trying to ask with this question?
To me, it seems as if you are asking "at what point does this clearly-defined point occur?"
 
INRM said:
Okay, this is not meant to be a far fetched discussion.

There are a lot of things that allow a person to manipulate another person. Whether it be a variety of advertising methods, persuasiveness, fear-mongering, intimidation, use of smells, sounds, sights, chemicals, medicines and so forth.

The question is at what point does manipulation cross the line into mind-control? I think we could all agree that if had a device that could take control of your brain, and make it operate in such a way to allow me to control every aspect of your behavior; make you do what I want to without you even being aware of the fact that you were being manipulated (you either had no memory of it, or simply felt it was your own decision)?
Click to expand...

No.

Manipulation is the use of exiting pattersn and social mores, especially in one to one social interactions.

Such a device is so far off that it is solely imaginary.
 
INRM said:
But manipulation comes in degrees



What point does it reach a state at which it would be considered able to override a person's will without their knowledge?
Click to expand...

Um it doesn't, that point has not been reached. Now when you condition soldiers to kill or mobs to riot that is manipulation but it is not mind control.
 
INRM said:
But manipulation comes in degrees
Click to expand...
Yes, so let's talk about those degrees. I don't see how calling it "mind control", complete with scare quotes, helps the discussion.



What point does it reach a state at which it would be considered able to override a person's will without their knowledge?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Sometimes, as social animals, we manipulate each other without either party realising it, but generally there's no "overriding of a person's will", because that only happens when you are actually aware of the manipulation.

But that's been going on probably for millions of years, at least for tens of thousands.
 
Jeff Corey

As a far fetched idea, how about I implant an electrode in your medial forebrain bundle and can zap it with a few millivolts whenever you do what I want?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HbAFYiejvo
Click to expand...

I think that could constitute mind control.


Little 10 Toes

]It depends on what you define manipulation as well as mind control. Would you consider Sophie's ChoiceWP mind control?
Click to expand...

I think that would best be described as coercion wouldn't it?

Is Equivocation (magic)WP mind control?
Click to expand...

I don't exactly understand how equivocation works so I couldn't tell you


KingMerv00

When they put the chip in.
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree on that


Ladewig

What exactly are you trying to ask with this question?
Click to expand...

I don't understand...

To me, it seems as if you are asking "at what point does this clearly-defined point occur?"
Click to expand...

It is important to be able to draw a line somewhere. If an absolute line cannot be drawn than there needs to be a range of manipulation which can be argued to cross the line into mind-control.


Dancing David

Such a device is so far off that it is solely imaginary.
Click to expand...

I didn't say such a device was real. Listen before you jump to conclusions. I simply wanted to figure out where the line lay between low-level to moderate-level manipulation to a level of manipulation (high-level, maybe moderate-level to high-level) that would cross a line that could be agreed to be mind-control.

While I'm not necessarily saying that technology exists to be able to totally control every aspect of human behavior; the technological capability to manipulate the functioning of the human brain has already existed for some time. The link that Jeff Corey posted would be an example of using electrical stimulation to manipulate the functioning of the human-brain.

Another example would include the work by Jose Delgado who, in the mid 1960's, did some research involving putting electronic chips in the brains of bulls, and even some human subjects. In one case, when the stimulation was applied to a human subject, he got up and began looking around. When asked why he did it, he believed it was the result of his own will and accord though clearly it was not.

In a quote before Congress in early 1974, he delivered one of the most repulsive quotes I have ever read: "Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain."

This statement was part of the February 24, 1974 edition of the Congressional Record, No. 262E, Vol. 118.

Now when you condition soldiers to kill or mobs to riot that is manipulation but it is not mind control.
Click to expand...

True, but what does cross the line?
 
The thread's question is only about how the words "manipulation" and "mind control" should be used. Not science just semantics.

"Control" implies something more absolute than just having a partial or inconsistent effect, which is what manipulation usually does. So I guess we could reply "manipulation becomes mind control when it's totally effective and always works without fail". End of discussion can we go home now please?

But you confuse the issue yourself by your reply to Jeff Corey's idea of "As a far fetched idea, how about I implant an electrode in your medial forebrain bundle and can zap it with a few millivolts whenever you do what I want?" to which you replied "I think that could constitute mind control."

No, that's behaviour control. You could still be free to think bad thoughts about Jeff, and believe whatever you want, and he wouldn't even know about it. He would be controlling your behaviour nor your mind.

To me "manipulation" implies the victim is not fully aware that the perpetrator has affected what they think, and how that was achieved. Otherwise it's just open persuasion, or winning an honest argument. If I tell you to do something or I'll shoot you, it's not manipulation, and it's not mind control. It's a particular kind of behaviour control.

Examples of manipulation are political propaganda and religions and most advertising, which often aims to make us dissatisfied and create a feeling of need which we didn't have before. The victim feels grateful to the advertiser for offering to satisfy a need, rather than resenting them for creating that need.

Manipulation doesn't use logic or evidence. It uses suggestion, music, emotional drama, showing us heroes or role models we aspire to be like, and pretending those people do whatever it is the advertiser wants us to do, such as consuming their junk and thinking it's wonderful.

If it works consistently on all who see the ad, I guess you can call it mind control, if you like to use that phrase, because it doesn't only affect our behaviour but also our thoughts and feelings.
 
Dancing David

A quote of the congressional record does not science make. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but Jose Delgado did do research on human beings and animals as I described in the mid 1960's. The fact that he, after researching how to do this, would make such a statement before Congress is highly disturbing.


Old Bloke

No, that's behaviour control. You could still be free to think bad thoughts about Jeff, and believe whatever you want, and he wouldn't even know about it. He would be controlling your behaviour nor your mind.
Click to expand...

No it would be controlling your mind too. If I made it extremely pleasurable to run off a cliff and jump -- how is that not mind-control?

To me "manipulation" implies the victim is not fully aware that the perpetrator has affected what they think, and how that was achieved.
Click to expand...

So you're saying if I could make you do anything I wanted and you weren't aware that I was affecting what you think, you didn't know how it was achieved, and you even felt as if the decisions you were making was yours, that this would still cross the line into mind-control?
 
OldBloke said:
The thread's question is only about how the words "manipulation" and "mind control" should be used. Not science just semantics.

"Control" implies something more absolute than just having a partial or inconsistent effect, which is what manipulation usually does. So I guess we could reply "manipulation becomes mind control when it's totally effective and always works without fail". End of discussion can we go home now please?

But you confuse the issue yourself by your reply to Jeff Corey's idea of "As a far fetched idea, how about I implant an electrode in your medial forebrain bundle and can zap it with a few millivolts whenever you do what I want?" to which you replied "I think that could constitute mind control."

No, that's behaviour control. You could still be free to think bad thoughts about Jeff, and believe whatever you want, and he wouldn't even know about it. He would be controlling your behaviour nor your mind.

To me "manipulation" implies the victim is not fully aware that the perpetrator has affected what they think, and how that was achieved. Otherwise it's just open persuasion, or winning an honest argument. If I tell you to do something or I'll shoot you, it's not manipulation, and it's not mind control. It's a particular kind of behaviour control.

Examples of manipulation are political propaganda and religions and most advertising, which often aims to make us dissatisfied and create a feeling of need which we didn't have before. The victim feels grateful to the advertiser for offering to satisfy a need, rather than resenting them for creating that need.

Manipulation doesn't use logic or evidence. It uses suggestion, music, emotional drama, showing us heroes or role models we aspire to be like, and pretending those people do whatever it is the advertiser wants us to do, such as consuming their junk and thinking it's wonderful.

If it works consistently on all who see the ad, I guess you can call it mind control, if you like to use that phrase, because it doesn't only affect our behaviour but also our thoughts and feelings.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, and welcome to the forum, OldBloke.

Yes, "manipulation" is a very... uh... manipulable term which covers everything from brainwashing to advertising. Everything we do manipulates our minds, including education. But control? Well, some minds are more easily manipulable than others. It is not the manipulator who decides exactly how much influence they have, but the person receiving the signals. This is why people who believe in one kind of woo often believe in many kinds of woo. Like a bad garderner, they can't control the weeds that drift into their lives.
 
INRM said:
Yes, but Jose Delgado did do research on human beings and animals as I described in the mid 1960's. The fact that he, after researching how to do this, would make such a statement before Congress is highly disturbing.
Click to expand...

Some educated and experienced kook made a kooky statement in front of Congress. Why do you find that disturbing? It happens virtually every year. The congressional record has a great deal of inflammatory language (both from sub-committee witnesses and from actual members of Congress). If Congress listened to the testimony and said, "you're right, we are going to get started on that immediately," then you would have a reason to feel highly disturbed. As it stands, not so much.

Yes, there are people who want that power and would unhesitatingly use it, but we are not close to making people unknowingly do things against their will. Why not worry about what is actually happening rather than what might happen if technology could do things it cannot do?
 
INRM said:
Dancing David
Yes, but Jose Delgado did do research on human beings and animals as I described in the mid 1960's. The fact that he, after researching how to do this, would make such a statement before Congress is highly disturbing.
Click to expand...

And the fact that there has been plenty of well researched neurology since then and it does not anywhere replicate his sepcious and poorly designed study, say more.

How dod he control for the placement of the electrode?
What time and motion studies in the off setting were done to demonstrate that the motion claimed in the on setting was different than the off setting.

And that is not even discussing the actual neurology and confounding factors. There is a condition called akesthesia that makes people want to get up and pace. Those sort of neurological effects from electrode stimulation should be accounted for , long before any discussion of volition.
 
Last edited:
So InRM, where is the source for the bolded part?

"Another example would include the work by Jose Delgado who, in the mid 1960's, did some research involving putting electronic chips in the brains of bulls, and even some human subjects. In one case, when the stimulation was applied to a human subject, he got up and began looking around. When asked why he did it, he believed it was the result of his own will and accord though clearly it was not.

"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom