Who Tells You What To Think?

Mention the very concept of mind control, and most normal Americans are likely to think of something out of science fiction. In the 1987 film RoboCop, deceased Detroit cop Alex Murphy is reborn as a cyborg. He has a robotic body and a full brain-computer interface that allows him to control his movements with his mind. He can access online information such as suspects’ faces, uses artificial intelligence (AI) to help detect threats, and his human memories have been integrated with those from a machine. Many of the features that seemed unreal when the movie was released are now not only achievable but everyday realities.

Similarly, the mind-bending powers of superheroes and their villains, from Charles Xavier, whose Cerebro can recreate all of someone’s brain, to Emma Frost, whose telepathic abilities protect others, and Jean Grey, who was born with psionic powers. Comic books, almost from their inception, have played around with the concept of thought control. On one hand, the skill sounds alluring, but at the same time, it is frightening to be the one whose mind is open to and controlled by someone else.

We tend to think of thought control in telepathic terms, where one super-brain controls or reads the thoughts of ‘normal’ brains. Some people have accused schools of exercising thought control in their teaching methods, and others have accused the media of utilizing brainwashing techniques in their programming.

There is a significant difference, however, between a person or device being influential on someone and direct thought control, with some method of directly inserting instructions of information into a brain without its owner’s consent.

An influencer, whether it be a teacher or social media content producer, may suggest that, for example, the golden rule is a good practice for society or that a new brand of shampoo completely eliminates tangles. In either situation, the choice still remains open. One can choose how they wish to treat others, or if trying the shampoo is worth the risk of one’s hair falling out.

By contrast, brain control would take over at least some parts of the brain’s function, leaving the owner without any choice. There are practical real-world applications where this would be extremely helpful, say in the instance of paralysis, where the brain needs help executing the commands it’s given.

In the latest breakthrough, a research team based at the University of California has unveiled a brain implant that enabled a woman with paralysis to livestream her thoughts via AI into a synthetic voice with just a three-second delay. The concept of how such a device might help people with severe brain injury is expansive.

Elroy Muskrat’s Neuralink has been able to get patients to control a computer cursor using similar techniques. However, it’s also worth emphasising that deep learning neural networks are enabling more sophisticated devices that rely on other forms of brain monitoring.

What sounds amazing and wonderful from a science perspective, however, can spell trouble in the hands of the wrong person. All of the science fiction books and superhero comics are filled with exactly that situation: the bad guy controls the mind of the good guy, and bad things happen.

That’s why, when President Felonious Punk makes comments that reference a ‘potential terrorist’ or something of that ilk, we should worry. The Punk administration is targeting a broad group of foreigners by making aggressive use of a 1952 immigration law. Under it, the secretary of state can decree someone “inadmissible” whose presence in the country “would have potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences”. Further, the government suggests that the courts can’t second-guess what constitutes a serious foreign-policy consequence nor ask for specific evidence of wrongdoing. They are arguing that “it’s a blank cheque to the administration to declare anything contrary to our foreign policy, and then revoke people’s visas and deport them”, says David Cole, who argued a similar case on behalf of Palestinian protesters that was litigated over two decades.

In other words, if the President and/or Secretary of State declares that a person is a threat, then, in their opinion, the person is immediately guilty. There can be no further questioning. This is why the White House has been stalling the courts in the matters of students who have been arrested without having done anything wrong.

Is the government effectively using this law as a means of mind control? Not exactly, at least not in the way we might normally think. It is a heavy-handed approach to an extremely serious situation. The law being used is the same one that Senator Joseph McCarthy utilized during the Red Scare of the 1950s. However, the same law Mr Rubio is invoking to deport foreign students was amended in 1990 to prevent deportation based on an immigrant’s beliefs, unless the secretary of state tells Congress that there is a compelling reason for deportation.

The First Amendment makes no distinction between non-citizens and citizens. However, recent interpretations of the Amendment infer that constitutional law generally doesn’t apply when immigration policies are at stake. That was SCOTUS’s opinion during Punk’s first administration.

There are also doubts about whether the foreign-policy provision is too vague to be enforced. Simply putting a concept into one’s head does not mean that the person takes the thought seriously enough to act upon it.

The situation creates severe issues, though, no matter how it may be applied. Scholars of racism face a peculiar accusation: that studying racism causes racism. As facile as this criticism is—no one thinks that agriculture professors cause world hunger or that cardiology professors cause heart attacks—racism scholars know that this sort of ignorant bullying comes with the territory.

The Punk administration claims that too many educational institutions have “toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices.” It purports to be intervening in young people’s defense.

Or, to phrase it more accurately, “We don’t think students can think for themselves, so we’re going to think for them.”

This is why college students are quite often caught up in protests: They don’t like being told what to think.

Now, do we begin to see the dichotomy between what is real and what is imagined? We imagine that tools like Muskrat’s Neuralink can tell college students or immigrants or everyday citizens what to think, creating a class of automatons that are unable to rise up against their leader. The reality is a very different picture.

In the next ten years, we can expect more technologies that provide disabled people with independence by helping them to move and communicate more easily. This entails improved versions of the technologies that are already emerging, including exoskeletons, mind-controlled prosthetics, and implants that move from controlling cursors to fully controlling computers or other machines. In all cases, it will be a question of balancing our increasing ability to interpret high-quality brain data with invasiveness, safety, and costs.

In the medium to long term, It should be similarly possible to create a Six Million Dollar Man, with enhanced vision, hearing and strength, by implanting the right sensors and linking the right components to convert neuron signals into action (actuators). No doubt applications will also emerge as our understanding of brain functionality increases that haven’t been thought of yet.

For now, the people involved at the technological level are focusing purely on what might be achieved through means that are helpful without being overwhelmingly invasive. The ethical questions are there, though, and at some point, we have to consider whether the advancement of positive technology is worth potentially being hacked or taken over by someone like Punk or Muskrat.

This isn’t an open-or-shut case to consider. Keep the conversation going.