Martin Ingvar (professor in neurophysiology)

Mind reading:

Microcircuits the interface between the neurons and a global brain function. (And its horrible associated illegal research)

Martin Ingvar (professor in neurophysiology)

This website is created to give you the possibility to become a whistleblower.

A　whistle-blower　refers to a person　in an organization that threatens its　future　by publishing　documents　or statements.

The question is if you Martin Ingvar are aware of ongoing research, without informed consent and ethic approval, which is carried out with ICT implants. It is a fact that you are hiding multi disciplinary scientific information in neuroscience, artificial intelligence and development of ICT implants and computer software (that can read and manipulate people’s minds).

Do you know, Martin, that the above is internationally known by now?

Humans subject to this research are very much like in a hostage drama. People’s identity, integrity and autonomy are stolen with ICT implants for development of new mindreading technologies in computer simulations.

People all over Europe can testify that (aggressive) strong artificial intelligence, in combination with acoustic imagining technologies (the little voice in your head), is used to imaging the brains functionality. This research is carried out with self learning computers.

Research is done without informed consent in order to study underlying processes of consciousness and associative memories. This “new” imaging technology has been used 24/7 since 2005 on many victims. The illegal research with ICT brain chips is usually hidden by false diagnose of mental illness.

The new ICT paradigm has since many years created severe damage to many families in Sweden and Europe. Lifetime achievement has been destroyed as an effect of this research.

Famous Swedish professors in ethics have since 2004 asked for an ethic debate on this topic. They have also warned for misuse of nanotechnology for listening to other people’s thoughts, and manipulate innocent people’s minds.

Information about subconscious and associated memories to create an understanding of the complex brain and its functional architecture can never progress with fMRI and PET cameras. A wider understanding of the brain needs the use of ICT implants.

The research is also about creating new brain interfaces and artificial intelligence for computers to ask questions and identify patterns in the brain, also known as “microcircuits between neurons and a global brain function”, or “synthetic telepathy”.

Relevant questions for Martin Ingvar to answer.

Are there any ethical approval of the development and clinical tests of the new generation of brain chips for decoding cognitive patterns?

Have the physical and psychological　effects　of copying those patterns with brain chips

(carried out for more than seven years) been identified and documented?

What laws are protecting humans for abuse of ICT implants and computer simulations to copy cognitive behavior?

Isn’t the situation for abuse of humans, under false diagnose of mental illness, obvious with the new emerging ICT technology’s for brain imagining?

Your awareness of and knowledge about any type of misuse of humans (as above described) and your participation as a possible whistleblower, is very important in order to save lives and create new laws.

Refereces:

http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/avis20_en.pdf

http://www.bioethics.ac.uk/news/ICT-Implants-nanotechnology-and-some-reasons-for-caution.php

http://sverigesradio.se/topsy/ljudfil/921832.mp3

http://www.stratresearch.se/sv/Strategiprocessen/Fas-1/Tillampad-Matematik—Datorsimulering-oc/

http://www.stratresearch.se/sv/Strategiprocessen/Fas-1/Forslag-till-SSF-forskningsprogram–Br/

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Bioe/BioeMcGe.htm

http://www.smer.gov.se/bazment/406.aspx

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=280DFA51C8E

C4C9EE13D303577C5BC6B.journals?fromPage=online&aid=1017164

http://www.roboethics.org/icra2005/dario.pdf

Scientists Warn of Ethical Battle Concerning Military Mind Control

Read org

Advances in neuroscience are closer than ever to becoming a reality, but scientists are warning the military – along with their peers – that with great power comes great responsibility

By JASON KOEBLER

March 20, 2012 RSS Feed Print

A future of brain-controlled tanks, automated attack drones and mind-reading interrogation techniques may arrive sooner than later, but advances in neuroscience that will usher in a new era of combat come with tough ethical implications for both the military and scientists responsible for the technology, according to one of the country’s leading bioethicists.

“Everybody agrees that conflict will be changed as new technologies are coming on,” says Jonathan Moreno, author ofMind Wars: Brain Science and the Military in the 21st Century. “But nobody knows where that technology is going.”

[See pictures of Navy SEALs]

Moreno warns in an essay published in the science journal PLoS Biology Tuesday that the military’s interest in neuroscience advancements “generates a tension in its relationship with science.”

“The goals of national security and the goals of science may conflict. The latter employs rigorous standards of validation in the expansion of knowledge, while the former depends on the most promising deployable solutions for the defense of the nation,” he writes.

Much of neuroscience focuses on returning function to people with traumatic brain injuries, he says. Just as Albert Einstein didn’t know his special theory of relativity could one day be used to create a nuclear weapon, neuroscience researchintended to heal could soon be used to harm.

“Neuroscientists may not consider how their work contributes to warfare,” he adds.

Moreno says there is a fine line between using neuroscience devices to allow an injured person to regain baseline functions and enhancing someone’s body to perform better than their natural body ever could.

“Where one draws that line is not obvious, and how one decides to cross that line is not easy. People will say ‘Why would we want to deny warfighters these advantages?’” he says.

[Mind Control, Biometrics Could Change the World]

Moreno isn’t the only one thinking about this. The Brookings Institution’s Peter Singer writes in his book, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, that “‘the Pentagon’s real-world record with things like the aboveground testing of atomic bombs, Agent Orange, and Gulf War syndrome certainly doesn’t inspire the greatest confidence among the first generation of soldiers involved [in brain enhancementresearch.]”

The military, scientists and ethicists are increasingly wondering how neuroscience technology changes the battlefield. The staggering possibilities are further along than many think. There is already development on automated drones that are programmed to make their own decisions about who to kill within the rules of war. Other ideas that are closer-than-you-think to becoming a military reality: Tanks controlled from half a world away, memory erasures that could prevent PTSD, and “brain fingerprinting” that could be used to extract secrets from enemies.Moreno foretold some of these developments when he first published Mind Wars in 2006, but not without trepidation.

“I was afraid I’d be dismissed as a paranoid schizophrenic when I first published the book,” he says. But then a funny thing happened—the Department of Defense and other military groups began holding panels on neurotechnology to determine how and when it should be used. I was surprised how quickly the policy questions moved forward. Questions like: ‘Can we use autonomous attack drones?’ ‘Must there be a human being in the vehicle?’ ‘How much of a payload can it have?’. There are real questions coming up in the international legal community.”

All of those questions will have to be answered sooner than later, Moreno says, along with a host of others. Should soldiers have the right to refuse “experimental” brain implants? Will the military want to use some of this technology before science deems it safe?

“There’s a tremendous tension about this,” he says. “There’s a great feeling of responsibility that we push this stuff out so we’re ahead of our adversaries.”

Open Questions to Mr Martin Ingvar. Are you involved?

Bioethics Truth Commission

Swedish FRA law – the first step towards automated law reinforcement
Bioethics Truth Commission is working to uncover the “dark forces” that are used in the development of strong AI (artificial intelligence), and nano brain implants. This by forcing more transparency and more democracy.

Progressing in strong AI, done on human guinea pigs where the research is hidden behind diagnoses of mental illness can never be accepted.If this situation continues, no one knows what is psychiatric disease or what is the strong AI. It can nerver be accepted that AI and robot technologies should be used for torture and behavioralmanipulation.

Become a wistlelblower to reveal this abuse of emerging technologies!

“Whistleblower” refers to a person within an organization that puts its future at risk by publicly disclosing irregularities.Bioethics Truth Commission expand the concept of whistleblower to cover both inside and outside the business

ETHICAL ASPECTS OF ICT IMPLANTS IN THE HUMAN BODY
Reference: Opinion produced on the direct initiative of the EGE
Rapporteurs: Professor Stefano Rodotà and Professor Rafael Capurro
The Chairperson: Swedish Professor Göran Hermerén

Information and communication technologies (ICT) pervade our lives. Thus far, this pervasive
influence has mainly involved devices that we use for private purposes or at the work place such
as personal computers, mobile phones, laptops and the like. Due to new developments these
devices are becoming more and more part of our bodies, either because we wear them (wearable
computing) or because they are implanted in our bodies.
At first sight ICT implants are ethically unproblematic if we think for instance about cardiac
pacemakers. However, although ICT implants may be used to repair deficient bodily capabilities
they can also be misused, particularly if these devices are accessible via digital networks. One
might even think of such devices as a threat to human dignity and particularly to the integrity of
the human body (see Section 5), while for others such implants might be seen primarily as a
means for restoring damaged human capabilities and therefore as a contribution to the promotion
of human dignity.
The idea of letting ICT devices get under our skin in order not just to repair but even to enhance
human capabilities gives rise to science fiction visions with threat and/or benefit characteristics.
However, in some cases, the implantation of microchips is already taking place with the potential
for individual and social forms of control.

Read full report here