Kevin Day, Navy UFO Contact After-Effects |403|

Great Stuff Michael
There are a few cracks in the facade like the new laws in Kiwi giving legal person-hood to rivers, or whatever the legal status is
This statement has intrigued me blaise. What was the basis of the law? More like a corporation has legal rights much akin to an invdividual, or was it more esoteric than that?
 
This statement has intrigued me blaise. What was the basis of the law? More like a corporation has legal rights much akin to an invdividual, or was it more esoteric than that?
Yes as far as I understand it will give rivers legal rights as if they were persons, so if you polluted a river or pumped water from it etc so that you damaged it you would be causing harm to a person, its very new and untested though so could could go whichever way with precedents set.
I must admit I didn't get the whole story as I got the news from a retiree from Oxford (UK) who has moved in up the road and was writing up papers for a professor somebody from somewhere else that had helped formulate the laws.I was busy arguing with her boyfriend who had a very narrow view on reality so was a bit distracted.
 
ES,
Right. This cannot be emphasized enough. There is no clearance designation above TS. After that it's all compartmentalized and on a need to know basis. There is no "key intelligence official" who knows all that is going on. There are directors who organize information from a perhaps a few compartments within his/her purview, but certainly not by a long shot every compartment in the military/IC/ or other aspects of govt. Supposedly, those directors then report up to some higher level, but even those information pyramids exist within silos. And of course, transparency is lost at each juncture in the reporting pyramid. Beyond the need to know restrictions, there's the usual turf battles, fights for funding, cover-ups of goof-ups, etc. that one finds in any large bureaucracy. that further obscure the transmitting of clean and accurate info. Someone who is directing, say DIA activities in the MENA, has no more insight into UFOs than you or I. He would have no insight even into far more mundane matters, such as DEA activity in S. America (unless it involved, say, drug smuggling by MENA based terrorists. Then he'd have to be read into the DEA's S. American drug smuggling intelligence program/compartment(s) related to the area of interest to the DIA).

Folks, there is no one in charge. There is no one who has the complete big picture. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying or another loony conspiracy theory propagator. Even POTUS, who technically can declassify anything and have full access, doesn't. In part because he doesn't even know what to ask for and because he's only there for 4 to 8 years and the bureaucracy can wait him out.
Very interesting, it makes sense to me. Being on a top level position in government doesn't mean you nessacarily know everything now. That would be virtually impossible. I'm skeptical of any hierarchical structure by my own nature
 
My wild ass guess is that the aliens have harnessed something along the lines of PK and that they, and their craft, travel at the speed of thought. That is how they can cover galactic distances and perform aerial maneuvers that seem to defy physics.

I've never seen a UFO, but the evidence that they are some form of physical craft is pretty convincing. I have witnessed PK. Putting the two phenomena together is how I arrived at my guess.

Aliens could look similar to humans depending on what planet they're from.
Pk?
 
Every once in a while, you and I agree completely, and this is definitely one of them!

Of course a broken mechanical clock tells exactly the right time once or twice per day!

David
So: the river, like any other human being, has to pay taxes and obey the law -- not committing a crime by, for example, drowning people or destroying their property when it overflows its banks during a flood?

Strikes me it isn't personhood so much as super-personhood, because the river will have all the rights and none of the responsibilities of an ordinary person. I await with bemused interest the time when the river gets prosecuted for reckless endangerment , mischevousness or even murder. Won't happen, of course, because the ruling creates a totally safe space for the river where it can do whatever rivers do with complete impunity.

Not as if it doesn't already have complete immunity from prosecution by virtue of the fact it isn't actually a person. Nor will it ever be able to prosecute criminals who abuse it -- you can bet that if that happens, it will be by surrogate, real persons who take up the cudgels on its behalf.
 
Last edited:
This statement has intrigued me blaise. What was the basis of the law? More like a corporation has legal rights much akin to an invdividual, or was it more esoteric than that?
There's a bunch of stuff on Google - https://www.livescience.com/58398-3-rivers-just-became-legal-persons.html for example.

In animistic thought personhood is an integral idea that can be applied to creatures, things and spirits (all 3 being the same thing essentially). For a government to recognise the personhood of a river is, I think, a wonderful idea. It acknowledges that other-than-human lives have innate rights and integrity of being, and it challenges the human presumption that we get to define personhood and rights - almost solely in terms of utility on our terms. There was a time when humans were denied personhood and rights.

I have seen compelling evidence that ET is essentially animistic, as are non-physical agents. In fact at one time it does seem that humans were fundamentally animistic up to the development of formal Christianity, which concealed the animism of early Christianity to create a distinction from pagans. Of course the erroneous idea that humanity had 'dominion' over all other creatures appealed to the amoral and the immoral because it excused them from imagining God as anything more than an extension of their egos. Materialism ditched the God but kept the conceit - and then invented the idiotic notion that Law could be concocted by the rich, powerful and morally debased.

The idea that we grant personhood to a river should be outrageous - as it is to those in animistic cultures. The river has always had its personhood. But at least now we are telling ourselves that we need to recognise and honour what is. It is interesting that many 'abductee' accounts concern 'education' about our reality that is critical to our future wellbeing. What we presently call animism is central to understanding the nature of the lessons.

I have a sense that we see ET in tech terms because that's how our minds are conditioned., That doesn't mean that ET can only present to us in concrete form and no other, or that different forms of manifestation and expression are mutually exclusive - and not part of a continuum that can be readily travelled by some, but not all, visitors.

Our habituated materialistic thinking forces us to imagine ET is only as expressed at a given time -because that's how we experience our reality. Years ago I became puzzled by the perception that ET had no culture - no finesse or panache - everything was dully utilitarian. There was no subjective richness. Everything seemed to be intellectual. There was something wrong with that.

Maybe to a richer culture ET would appear as a vibrant and colourful god or goddess - and with marvellously elaborate craft. We just get dull scientific and militaristic utility because that's where are minds are at.
 
Welcome Superqualia!

I hope you will also find ways to apply your psychology experience here. Do you use that degree in your job? Have you read about past life hypnosis - I wonder if you have any thoughts on this - maybe in another thread, to avoid derailing this one.

BTW is there a concept of a super-qualia, as distinct from ordinary qualia?

David
Currently I am sort-of in between jobs as I had little appetite for sales though I am expecting my career to change soon -- I hope!

This is going to be hard to verify, but about 5 years ago I told Aleks about the transhumanist schmoozing Christof Koch, who was somehow able to get him onto the show. Not taking credit, just made him aware. My major at that time was cognitive science, also studied neuroscience, but eventually decided the best route to ending my 'career' at university was having those upper level credits translated into psych. credits!

I imagine the idea of a superlative qualia isn't new. Sometimes I think my pet cat had it! I know you've been on this website for awhile now! I still listened to many of the shows since the forum was migrated. I've alway found Alek's view refreshing. Five years ago I was an atheist but now I am an idealist (sort-of).

I really would like to see a citizen science radar station. Someone else will have to donate their 401k. Mine is empty!
 
So: the river, like any other human being, has to pay taxes and obey the law -- not committing a crime by, for example, drowning people or destroying their property when it overflows its banks during a flood?

Strikes me it isn't personhood so much as super-personhood, because the river will have all the rights and none of the responsibilities of an ordinary person. I await with bemused interest the time when the river gets prosecuted for reckless endangerment , mischevousness or even murder. Won't happen, of course, because the ruling creates a totally safe space for the river where it can do whatever rivers do with complete impunity.

Not as if it doesn't already have complete immunity from prosecution by virtue of the fact it isn't actually a person. Nor will it ever be able to prosecute criminals who abuse it -- you can bet that if that happens, it will be by surrogate, real persons who take up the cudgels on its behalf.
Hi Michael
I unfortunatly worked on large containerships for a period of my life and I cant tell you the amount and toxicity of poisons we transport around the world to keep our system going is mind blowing...something we are all complicit in. Killing a few humans during flooding when they have foolishly built houses in a floodzone is very small change indeed in comparison.
 
Strikes me it isn't personhood so much as super-personhood, because the river will have all the rights and none of the responsibilities of an ordinary person. I await with bemused interest the time when the river gets prosecuted for reckless endangerment , mischevousness or even murder. Won't happen, of course, because the ruling creates a totally safe space for the river where it can do whatever rivers do with complete impunity.

The reply button isn't working.

Think of the Queen of England, or (God forbid) the US President. Both have personhood and neither are subject to 'normal' laws. A river has sovereign personhood because others are dependent upon it. If it floods it is not the river's act, but a higher order of agency. A river does not 'recklessly endanger' any more than the sun does on a very hot day. A river, like the Queen of England, exerts its influence by the 'grace of God'.

Of course, if you are a materialist none of this matters.

The responsibility of a river is to be the complex presence it is. Exit a river from a scenario and see how life gets on. It is knowing how much we depend on rivers that moves a government to protect them. By granting it personhood the legal argument is simplified. Can we defend 'necessary' abuse? How? How do we know when we abuse an essential element of our ecology if we have no rational measure? We did not comprehend the harm of rape until we granted women proper personhood.

If we look at things from the point of view of sovereignty - when rulers were held morally responsible for the welfare of their land - do you reward the river when it provides abundance (most of the time) and punish it when it offends via floods? If we are just, how do we reward and punish?

Acknowledging the personhood of a river is not an act of conferring a novel right. It is an act of confessing what is. We do not create personhood, we recognise it and acknowledge it.
 
Hi Michael
I unfortunatly worked on large containerships for a period of my life and I cant tell you the amount and toxicity of poisons we transport around the world to keep our system going is mind blowing...something we are all complicit in.
I am sure you are right - but I don't think trying to apply human rights concepts to rivers makes any sense. In fact it probably creates a pointless squabble in parliament, which never addresses the real questions - levels of various pollutants, damage to fish life, etc etc.

You can stretch concepts too far, try applying:

Worker's rights to the electrons in a computer.

Microbial risk analysis to kissing.

Animal rights to flies.

etc.

David
 
I am sure you are right - but I don't think trying to apply human rights concepts to rivers makes any sense. In fact it probably creates a pointless squabble in parliament, which never addresses the real questions - levels of various pollutants, damage to fish life, etc etc.

You can stretch concepts too far, try applying:

Worker's rights to the electrons in a computer.

Microbial risk analysis to kissing.

Animal rights to flies.

etc.

David
Too true, I was just trying to answer using the same argument, but you are right it doesnt work or make any sense really,should have left it alone.
 
Hi Michael
I unfortunatly worked on large containerships for a period of my life and I cant tell you the amount and toxicity of poisons we transport around the world to keep our system going is mind blowing...something we are all complicit in. Killing a few humans during flooding when they have foolishly built houses in a floodzone is very small change indeed in comparison.
What does that have to do with making a river a person? You can do what you want, wave your magic wand or whatever, but the river is always going to remain a river. And your point about rivers killing comparatively few people is morally bankrupt. You seem like one of those who want to place human beings at the bottom of the totem pole. See where that gets you when the next earthquake or flood or storm or whatever threatens your life. Still, it won't matter, because you're just a stray and insignificant one of billions that the world won't miss.
 
Strikes me it isn't personhood so much as super-personhood, because the river will have all the rights and none of the responsibilities of an ordinary person. I await with bemused interest the time when the river gets prosecuted for reckless endangerment , mischevousness or even murder. Won't happen, of course, because the ruling creates a totally safe space for the river where it can do whatever rivers do with complete impunity.

The reply button isn't working.

Think of the Queen of England, or (God forbid) the US President. Both have personhood and neither are subject to 'normal' laws. A river has sovereign personhood because others are dependent upon it. If it floods it is not the river's act, but a higher order of agency. A river does not 'recklessly endanger' any more than the sun does on a very hot day. A river, like the Queen of England, exerts its influence by the 'grace of God'.

Of course, if you are a materialist none of this matters.

The responsibility of a river is to be the complex presence it is. Exit a river from a scenario and see how life gets on. It is knowing how much we depend on rivers that moves a government to protect them. By granting it personhood the legal argument is simplified. Can we defend 'necessary' abuse? How? How do we know when we abuse an essential element of our ecology if we have no rational measure? We did not comprehend the harm of rape until we granted women proper personhood.

If we look at things from the point of view of sovereignty - when rulers were held morally responsible for the welfare of their land - do you reward the river when it provides abundance (most of the time) and punish it when it offends via floods? If we are just, how do we reward and punish?

Acknowledging the personhood of a river is not an act of conferring a novel right. It is an act of confessing what is. We do not create personhood, we recognise it and acknowledge it.
You're an animist, and so it doesn't surprise me that you applaud the insanity of making a river a person.
 
What does that have to do with making a river a person? You can do what you want, wave your magic wand or whatever, but the river is always going to remain a river. And your point about rivers killing comparatively few people is morally bankrupt. You seem like one of those who want to place human beings at the bottom of the totem pole. See where that gets you when the next earthquake or flood or storm or whatever threatens your life. Still, it won't matter, because you're just a stray and insignificant one of billions that the world won't miss.
Im not sure I understand,they arnt making a river a person,but giving it personhood,as we do with a corporation
 
I respect all the new lines of thought on the alien issue being dscussed. I, however, conclude we need access to *all*of the data the government has, and that won't happen. Was I just making up the idea of a citizen ufo detection project? I am sure I saw a website about that and heard people talking about it? How feasible is it? Isn't that the next step?
 
Top