Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Troops could 'control guns with their minds',


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

Soldiers could control weapons systems simply by using their minds, British scientists have suggested.

Researchers found the Armed Forces could harness the rapid advance of neuroscience to improve the training of soldiers, pilots and other personnel.

A study, from the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, showed the possible benefits of neuroscience to military and law enforcement.

It predicted new designer drugs that boost performance, make enemy troops fall asleep and ensure captives become more talkative.

But among the more remarkable scenarios suggested in the report involved the use of devices called brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) to connect soldiers' brains directly to military technology such as drones and weapons.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • aquatus1

    6

  • Spock_the_Future

    5

  • psychoticmike

    3

  • Still Waters

    1

they already have it, i mean come on they have had this sort of tech for quite some time. I doubt their just now concidering using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they already have it, i mean come on they have had this sort of tech for quite some time.

Oh really?! I you know this how?!

I doubt their just now concidering using it.

Nope, this has been predicted for the last 40 years or so. That doesn't mean that the technology is in place to actually do it.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, now they don't only want cars, trucks, tanks and helicopters at the mercy of a single fuse, they want to extend that to guns.... Sounds like some people are working hard to make war impossible :devil:

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, now they don't only want cars, trucks, tanks and helicopters at the mercy of a single fuse, they want to extend that to guns.... Sounds like some people are working hard to make war impossible :devil:

I agree, its like your using cheat codes to win a fight, its not fair ...but there is nothing fair in a war!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really?! I you know this how?!

Nope, this has been predicted for the last 40 years or so. That doesn't mean that the technology is in place to actually do it.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I tryed to find a source, but i can't think of the right key words so i can't find it right now. but i have been hearing about this for years. So yes maybe its more of an assumption but its backed by a lot of evidence. You really think the military will let us know what kind of tech they have so soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tryed to find a source, but i can't think of the right key words so i can't find it right now. but i have been hearing about this for years. So yes maybe its more of an assumption but its backed by a lot of evidence. You really think the military will let us know what kind of tech they have so soon?

I think the military is seriously unlikely to hand over their tech to civilians before they get a chance to play with it, even if it does exist (I personally think we are still a good decade away from even the most basic systems being ready to be fielded).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the military is seriously unlikely to hand over their tech to civilians before they get a chance to play with it, even if it does exist (I personally think we are still a good decade away from even the most basic systems being ready to be fielded).

but thats what i mean. This type of tech has already been researched quite a lot so disabled people can use their mind to control things, so the military could use what they have already learned to fast track their research. So to me its entirely in the realm of possibility that they may already have it. You could be right, maybe they have some bugs to work out before it goes into full use, or maybe thats just what they want us to think. I would imagine you would have to have a very focused mind in order to use such a device, but hey thats what trainings for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Finding new and better ways to kill doesn't seem appealing to me. Why not make a mind controlled space exploration ship instead ? or try to find if warp technology is possible ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finding new and better ways to kill doesn't seem appealing to me.

Really? The old ways of killing tend towards more and more indiscriminate and painful the farther back you go. New technology allows more and more accuracy, lower collateral damage, and faster termination than ever before. Heck, we've even outlawed certain weapons which we consider to be too cruel and barbaric, even if they were a bit more effective than the one's we use now.

Finding new and better ways to kill people seems to me to be a fine indicator that we are moving away from our brutal and barbaric path to a more peaceful future.

Why not make a mind controlled space exploration ship instead ?

There is no need to?

or try to find if warp technology is possible ?

Because weapons manufacturers and neurologists don't really focus on quantum physics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? The old ways of killing tend towards more and more indiscriminate and painful the farther back you go. New technology allows more and more accuracy, lower collateral damage, and faster termination than ever before. Heck, we've even outlawed certain weapons which we consider to be too cruel and barbaric, even if they were a bit more effective than the one's we use now.

Finding new and better ways to kill people seems to me to be a fine indicator that we are moving away from our brutal and barbaric path to a more peaceful future.

Come On. Is Killing really that necessary ? Killing in better way is humane ? why not endorse mercy killing then ? It's a different ballgame entirely and seems more humane then trying to find better ways for killing people who still wish to live.

There is no need to?

Why not ? Isn't that a better technology which could take us farther into space exploration ? Maybe something in tune with a Issac Asimov novel ?

Because weapons manufacturers and neurologists don't really focus on quantum physics?

Well, I really pity them then. They should, It's the next frontier.

Edit: Then again I re-read and maybe you are really being sarcastic while replying to my post.

Edited by Spock_the_Future
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come On. Is Killing really that necessary ?

Not anymore. That's why we can spend ten years trying to negotiate peace before having to actually shoot anyone.

Killing in better way is humane ?

Well, yeah, pretty much by definition.

why not endorse mercy killing then ?

Because mercy killings, not being war, are an entirely different ballgame.

It's a different ballgame entirely and seems more humane then trying to find better ways for killing people who still wish to live.

You are certainly entitled to hold your opinions on subject other than the one actually being discussed in this thread.

Why not ? Isn't that a better technology which could take us farther into space exploration ? Maybe something in tune with a Issac Asimov novel ?

Not really. The problem right now isn't giving commands or control of the ship. It's just getting out there in the first place (and that is not including the actual political obstacles).

Well, I really pity them then. They should, It's the next frontier.

Nothing wrong with doing what you are good at doing.

Edit: Then again I re-read and maybe you are really being sarcastic while replying to my post.

I don't do sarcasm too much. Especially on the internet, where most of the feeling just doesn't go through. I tend to be a more direct sort of person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not anymore. That's why we can spend ten years trying to negotiate peace before having to actually shoot anyone.

And the good thing about it is ?

Well, yeah, pretty much by definition.

So killing is necessary (Evil, I hope that you think that it is wrong in someway) by what you are saying ?

Because mercy killings, not being war, are an entirely different ballgame.

Yep they are, but in the end, some human life is lost in the end, which we maybe able to avoid with mind controlled limbs and so on and so forth.

You are certainly entitled to hold your opinions on subject other than the one actually being discussed in this thread.

I'll get back to the topic. Getting to better ways to kill is not right in my thinking. Are we world people or is killing justified(in the name of people divisions called country, religion, language and so on and so forth...) ?. Does the greed of some power hungry people takes away all our logic and belief in existence of life ? And it isn't about who starts it, In the

end there is always someone power hungry in leadership of all the divisions that we have created.

Not really. The problem right now isn't giving commands or control of the ship. It's just getting out there in the first place (and that is not including the actual political obstacles).

I agree, We don't think of advancing towards mutual benefit, nor research towards it, Power (Money, fame, power over people) drives us in the end.

Nothing wrong with doing what you are good at doing.

My Strong point will remain strong, It's the weak ones I need to work on and strengthen. You are helping me do that in some other topic remember ? What is wrong with self development ? Need to have mind controlled weapons v/s need to have mind controlled technology to make life better. You choose and tell me.

I don't do sarcasm too much. Especially on the internet, where most of the feeling just doesn't go through. I tend to be a more direct sort of person.

Well, I thought you were doing that based on what you replied against my understanding of the value of human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the good thing about it is ?

*blinks*

Seriously? The good thing about being able to talk about a problem for ten years, as opposed to just killing people deemed a threat?

I guess I always just took it as a given that it was inherently a good thing, but if I had to think about it, I supposed I would say that the good thing about killing no longer being really necessary would be that it is a gradual process of removing ourselves from our more brutal past.

So killing is necessary (Evil, I hope that you think that it is wrong in someway) by what you are saying ?

:huh:

Ah, no? That killing in a faster, less painful, and more precise way is more humane does not really lead to the conclusion that killing is necessary. Using a piston gun to kill a cow is more humane than using a knife; this does not really lead to the conclusion that killing the cow is necessary.

Nor is killing a matter of Good vs Evil. How could it be? Killing is an action. Good and Evil are morality judgements. Morality is what cause the action, not the action itself.

Yep they are, but in the end, some human life is lost in the end, which we maybe able to avoid with mind controlled limbs and so on and so forth.

I...am not seeing the connection between mercy killings and and mind-controlled limbs...

I'll get back to the topic. Getting to better ways to kill is not right in my thinking. Are we world people or is killing justified(in the name of people divisions called country, religion, language and so on and so forth...) ?. Does the greed of some power hungry people takes away all our logic and belief in existence of life ? And it isn't about who starts it, In the

end there is always someone power hungry in leadership of all the divisions that we have created.

I will leave philosophy to those who wish to spend their time in a cave gazing at their navel. I would much rather deal with the nuts and bolts of humanity itself. When all is said and done, the simple fact of the matter is that the behaviour of humans contains war. It has always been there, it is there now, and chances are pretty good it is going to be there for a while to come yet. No amount of philosophy has ever been able to do away with it. Since we cannot talk war away, I would much rather support technology that reduces the atrocities of war. If, instead of accidentally killing the bystanders who would like nothing more than to just get on with their lives, we more accurately target just those power-hungry people who cause the problems in the first place, that is a step forward, both in reducing brutality, and in reducing war overall.

I agree, We don't think of advancing towards mutual benefit, nor research towards it, Power (Money, fame, power over people) drives us in the end.

*shrugs*

I tend to think in terms of behaviour, rather than conclusions.

My Strong point will remain strong, It's the weak ones I need to work on and strengthen. You are helping me do that in some other topic remember ?

My advice to you is to work both on the organization of your arguments, and on the seperation between the emotional aspects and the logical aspects.

What is wrong with self development ?

Nothing. Telling others that they shouldn't be working on what they are good at, and instead be working on something you think they should be working on does look a little pretentious though. Granted, many parents do that to their children on a regular basis...

Need to have mind controlled weapons v/s need to have mind controlled technology to make life better. You choose and tell me.

I choose mind controlled weapons. The money and research that will result from that will be a force multiplier for any residual technologies, which can then be used by people who work in fields other than weapon development to turn that technology into something useful for the average civilian.

Philosophy is nice, but reality tends to have a greater return on investment.

Well, I thought you were doing that based on what you replied against my understanding of the value of human life.

Nah. I like to avoid sarcasm in all but humor situations. I don't have much respect for sarcasm as a tool for discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*blinks*

Seriously? The good thing about being able to talk about a problem for ten years, as opposed to just killing people deemed a threat?

I guess I always just took it as a given that it was inherently a good thing, but if I had to think about it, I supposed I would say that the good thing about killing no longer being really necessary would be that it is a gradual process of removing ourselves from our more brutal past.

:huh:

Ah, no? That killing in a faster, less painful, and more precise way is more humane does not really lead to the conclusion that killing is necessary. Using a piston gun to kill a cow is more humane than using a knife; this does not really lead to the conclusion that killing the cow is necessary.

Nor is killing a matter of Good vs Evil. How could it be? Killing is an action. Good and Evil are morality judgements. Morality is what cause the action, not the action itself.

I...am not seeing the connection between mercy killings and and mind-controlled limbs...

I will leave philosophy to those who wish to spend their time in a cave gazing at their navel. I would much rather deal with the nuts and bolts of humanity itself. When all is said and done, the simple fact of the matter is that the behaviour of humans contains war. It has always been there, it is there now, and chances are pretty good it is going to be there for a while to come yet. No amount of philosophy has ever been able to do away with it. Since we cannot talk war away, I would much rather support technology that reduces the atrocities of war. If, instead of accidentally killing the bystanders who would like nothing more than to just get on with their lives, we more accurately target just those power-hungry people who cause the problems in the first place, that is a step forward, both in reducing brutality, and in reducing war overall.

*shrugs*

I tend to think in terms of behaviour, rather than conclusions.

My advice to you is to work both on the organization of your arguments, and on the seperation between the emotional aspects and the logical aspects.

Nothing. Telling others that they shouldn't be working on what they are good at, and instead be working on something you think they should be working on does look a little pretentious though. Granted, many parents do that to their children on a regular basis...

I choose mind controlled weapons. The money and research that will result from that will be a force multiplier for any residual technologies, which can then be used by people who work in fields other than weapon development to turn that technology into something useful for the average civilian.

Philosophy is nice, but reality tends to have a greater return on investment.

Nah. I like to avoid sarcasm in all but humor situations. I don't have much respect for sarcasm as a tool for discussion.

Well I must say that your sense of fatality and the finality when you say that we will always indulge in some kind of killings and war kind of saddens me. Why would you call the concept of not thinking of killing fellow beings "Philosophy" ? Wasn't that a way of life for a few people we still remember(And a few more of us do follow that concept, remember Gandhi ? he did achieve something that he was aiming for without killing people, no Philosophy just a real life example.). I would say make mind controlled technology for betterment of life (Isn't that possible ?) rather then creating mind controlled weapons. and It's not Philosophy, it's a way of life we should have, we have the concept of morality just because we supposedly are THE Intelligent Species, or do you wish to say that we still follow the animal instincts ? Would you still call it Philosophy and not a way of living we should have ? Power corrupts and we choose to follow like sheep ? Come on.

Edit: Pretentious ? I am ready to work on my weak point and correct them, what harm would that do ? They are Scientists, why should they not wish to know what they should know ?

Edited by Spock_the_Future
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I must say that your sense of fatality and the finality when you say that we will always indulge in some kind of killings and war kind of saddens me.

Accepting that it is a reality today does not mean that one believes that it can never change, so it is hardly fatalistic. Nor is finality a bad thing when it concerns the frank reality in front of us today.

Why would you call the concept of not thinking of killing fellow beings "Philosophy" ?

When a subjective concept influences morality and ethics in your worldview and causes you to behave in certain cultural manners, it is referred to as a philosophy.

Wasn't that a way of life for a few people we still remember(And a few more of us do follow that concept, remember Gandhi ? he did achieve something that he was aiming for without killing people, no Philosophy just a real life example.).

No, that is pretty much the definition of philosophy. His entire behaviour was influenced by his beliefs regarding what was moral and ethical. It influenced how he lived his life. Hence, philosophy.

I don't think it was a particularly practical philosophy, and I tend to favor pragmatism over philosophy any day of the week.

I would say make mind controlled technology for betterment of life (Isn't that possible ?) rather then creating mind controlled weapons.

Hey, if you are willing to foot the bill, there's plenty of people willing to work for you.

and It's not Philosophy, it's a way of life we should have,

By definition, a philosophy is pretty much a way of life.

we have the concept of morality just because we supposedly are THE Intelligent Species, or do you wish to say that we still follow the animal instincts ?

Both.

Would you still call it Philosophy and not a way of living we should have ?

I would call it a philosophy. I would not object to people thinking of it as a way we should live, although I personally do not share that belief.

Power corrupts and we choose to follow like sheep ? Come on.

Not seeing the relevance of this statement to the discussion.

Edit: Pretentious ? I am ready to work on my weak point and correct them, what harm would that do ?

Good. Now that you know that the statement sounded pretentious, you can work on presenting it in a more neutral fashion.

They are Scientists, why should they not wish to know what they should know ?

Because scientists are specialists. They spend a lot of time and invest a ton of personal effort into learning the things that they do not know within their chosen field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accepting that it is a reality today does not mean that one believes that it can never change, so it is hardly fatalistic. Nor is finality a bad thing when it concerns the frank reality in front of us today.

Reality today is not a change. We do tend to change, we can change, and I hope that we will change.

When a subjective concept influences morality and ethics in your worldview and causes you to behave in certain cultural manners, it is referred to as a philosophy.

Morality defines us humans. I've seen a video of US skinning animals alive for selling FUR(And It's just the starting point). If it's still philosophy for you than then we will not discuss this. Also I agree it's not relevant to the topic.

No, that is pretty much the definition of philosophy. His entire behaviour was influenced by his beliefs regarding what was moral and ethical. It influenced how he lived his life. Hence, philosophy.

I don't think it was a particularly practical philosophy, and I tend to favor pragmatism over philosophy any day of the week.

He existed and things happened (That too in real life). Philosophy is a discussion about what can be and what shouldn't be too. Off topic again I know.

Hey, if you are willing to foot the bill, there's plenty of people willing to work for you.

I am willing to put in my part, how many of you will support me is the question. I am not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. But If money is required for it. I'll put in in more then what I can afford to. Again Off topic I know.

By definition, a philosophy is pretty much a way of life.

So consider it as something which can be taken as a way of life if it benefits us humans.

Both.

No Evolution for US eh.... ?

I would call it a philosophy. I would not object to people thinking of it as a way we should live, although I personally do not share that belief.

We do have the capacity for change. Think about it.

Not seeing the relevance of this statement to the discussion.

I meant we fight wars for whom ? for whom to develop weapons ? Bush or Obama ? Are you benefiting by the war in Iraq ? Who decides the killing ? You, Me or someone else ?

Good. Now that you know that the statement sounded pretentious, you can work on presenting it in a more neutral fashion.

It was not pretentious, I genuinely believe that killing and hurting solves nothing.

Because scientists are specialists. They spend a lot of time and invest a ton of personal effort into learning the things that they do not know within their chosen field.

Ok, I'll say that you are right on that. Fields in Science are still being understood. Understanding of the followed line comes first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality today is not a change. We do tend to change, we can change, and I hope that we will change.

As do I. Which is why one can have hope for the future, but still act on the reality of today.

Morality defines us humans. I've seen a video of US skinning animals alive for selling FUR(And It's just the starting point). If it's still philosophy for you than then we will not discuss this. Also I agree it's not relevant to the topic.

Humans define morality, not the other way around. There is no absolute morality that dictates who is human and who is not. For example, I cannot consider skinning an animal for fur any more moral or immoral than a killer whale using a seal pup as a beach ball. It is a behaviour, nothing less, nothing more, and one which would, ideally, be changed in the future. If it were a question of morality, we would have to accuse the killer whale of being immoral. I suppose you could do that, but I don't see the purpose in following that line of thought. Hence, it is a philosophy: it only applies to humans, and only to those who choose to view their world in this matter.

If you do not wish to discuss this further, I have no problem with that.

He existed and things happened (That too in real life). Philosophy is a discussion about what can be and what shouldn't be too. Off topic again I know.

Unfortunately, other things were about to happen as well. That particular philosophy worked against the British, who simply could not tolerate being seeing by the rest of the world smacking their rifle butts upside the heads of skinny Indians sitting quietly on the street. The British left.

Gandhi advocated the same policy against the Nazis. We never got to see what the outcome of this would have been, however, if forced to speculate...I do not believe the philosophy of passive resistance, as comforting as it was to Ghandi's followers and as useful as it was against the British, would have worked on the Nazi's. I suspect the Nazi's would have simply appreciated how cooperative the Indians were being in politely gathering together and standing still while they readied their guns.

I am willing to put in my part, how many of you will support me is the question. I am not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. But If money is required for it. I'll put in in more then what I can afford to. Again Off topic I know.

Actually, this is on topic, because it does address one of the primary causes of this sort of behaviour. Simply put, support is not the question. People will do what you pay them to do. If you get some of them to believe in what you want (which will be difficult because, as I mentioned earlier, your thoughts are a bit disorganized), that is a bonus, but not a very influential one. Even if you do get many people who are devoted to your idea...it is still nowhere near as efficient a means to produce change.

Philosophers claim that it is better to have one true believer than a dozen paid followers. Realists invent the assembly line.

So consider it as something which can be taken as a way of life if it benefits us humans.

Pretty much. Not so sure about the benefit part, but in general, yes, that is what a philosophy is.

No Evolution for US eh.... ?

How so?

We do have the capacity for change. Think about it.

I never said we didn't. In fact, I implied that we certainly could.

I meant we fight wars for whom ? for whom to develop weapons ? Bush or Obama ? Are you benefiting by the war in Iraq ? Who decides the killing ? You, Me or someone else ?

Again, not seeing the relevance.

It was not pretentious, I genuinely believe that killing and hurting solves nothing.

I believe you. However, it still sounded pretentious.

Ok, I'll say that you are right on that. Fields in Science are still being understood. Understanding of the followed line comes first.

That is all I am saying. It is a bit unreasonable to state that people specialized in one thing should (or even can) devote themselves to something completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.