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

Im not sure I understand,they arnt making a river a person,but giving it personhood,as we do with a corporation
This quote from the article in The Guardian summed it up nicely for me:

“We can trace our genealogy to the origins of the universe,” said Albert. “And therefore rather than us being masters of the natural world, we are part of it. We want to live like that as our starting point. And that is not an anti-development, or anti-economic use of the river but to begin with the view that it is a living being, and then consider its future from that central belief.”​
 
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
In my opinion the differentiation is purposed for expansion of the strength of law into civil torts: as opposed to merely criminal torts. In a criminal tort (say EPA violation), one must 'break the law' - however, in a civil tort, all one has to do is be a person, corporation or estate, and demonstrate harm (sans breaking any specific law). I would be hit with frivolous litigation charges by a court if I sued on behalf of an electron or microbe - :D

But if a river can sue short of the definition of a crime/violation of statue ...that is a whole new power. As well, the river could sue everyone who resided along its banks in a collective action.

The question however, is as always 'who gets the money?'
 
In my opinion the differentiation is purposed for expansion of the strength of law into civil torts: as opposed to merely criminal torts. In a criminal tort (say EPA violation), one must 'break the law' - however, in a civil tort, all one has to do is be a person, corporation or estate, and demonstrate harm (sans breaking any specific law). I would be hit with frivolous litigation charges by a court if I sued on behalf of an electron or microbe - :D

But if a river can sue short of the definition of a crime/violation of statue ...that is a whole new power. As well, the river could sue everyone who resided along its banks in a collective action.

The question however, is as always 'who gets the money?'
Another question might be how you put the river on the witness stand and cross-examine it!

I mean, while I am willing to consider some pretty far out ideas - maybe a river does have a spiritual component - I don't think mixing such ideas with hard-nosed cynical politics and devious lawyers makes any sense at all.

David
 
Another question might be how you put the river on the witness stand and cross-examine it!

I mean, while I am willing to consider some pretty far out ideas - maybe a river does have a spiritual component - I don't think mixing such ideas with hard-nosed cynical politics and devious lawyers makes any sense at all.

David
Also - if you can't step into the same river twice can the same river sue you twice? :)
 
To the idealists here: isn’t the river, any river, part of your consciousness just like a mountain, a road, a cat or another person?

Moreover, to understand the politics behind this move one probably needs to have been immersed in maoridom, and the connection maori feel towards nature, and rivers in particular.
 
To the idealists here: isn’t the river, any river, part of your consciousness just like a mountain, a road, a cat or another person?

Moreover, to understand the politics behind this move one probably needs to have been immersed in maoridom, and the connection maori feel towards nature, and rivers in particular.
I think you misunderstand Idealism, or at least BK's presentation of it. There are all sorts of processes going on in the conciousness of MAL. Some of those are what we call animate entities (i.e. "dissociated" alters), and some, such as rivers and mountains, aren't. What distinguishes them, amongst other things, is their degree of complexity. Nothing inanimate is near as complex as even the most basic of life-forms. One might say that only life can appear to perception as immense complexity. The appearance to perception of non-life is by contrast comparatively much simpler.

I suppose It might make slightly more sense to attribute personhood to cats or amoebae, but only slightly because most organisms have no notion of what rights and responsibilities -- which I think are essential attributes of being a person -- are. So as I see it, it isn't personhood we should be considering so much as the promotion of, say, a river's life-sustaining capacity, which I'm all for.

A river has no idea whether it's polluted, and whether or not it is, it carries on its existence regardless. It cares not a fig whether it's capable of sustaining aquatic organisms. After having been polluted, it can become unpolluted (as in the case of the Thames, where salmon have reappeared after hundreds of years). How does it that happen? By eliminating the source of pollution, which in the case of the Thames was waste dumped in it by human beings.

I'm glad the Thames has recovered its life-sustaining capacity, and applaud any efforts of human beings to help that happen. But at no stage was the river ever aware of the needs of the life it sustained. Only the life itself could appreciate that, and only human beings could ever formulate the daft notion that rivers are persons: just another example of crazy PC policies formulated by SJW types with nothing better to do.
 
Did anyone see this one about the 2004 incident? From Raytheon who make the ATFLIR pods for the F/A-18 Super Hornets. Impressive comment from the engineering director.
https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/uap_atflir
Yes! Who has access to the raw data? If enough people elected the right congress persons, would we get it? I doubt it. If they were a threat, we wouldn't be here. Nothing to push the public to demand change.
 
If they were a threat, we wouldn't be here. Nothing to push the public to demand change.
Precisely! There would be absolutely no defence against an intra-galactic attack, or an attack across other dimensions (or whatever). If these things wanted to obliterate us, they could have long ago!

David
 
Precisely! There would be absolutely no defence against an intra-galactic attack, or an attack across other dimensions (or whatever). If these things wanted to obliterate us, they could have long ago!

David
Right. Its lies for money or its real. Another option is its our reverse engineered craft from previously recovered crashes -- i doubt it!

I think its more likely we are living in a post AI 'singularity' civilization with aliens and everything if the UFOs are real alien craft. In short consciousness itself is the virus that spreads across all dimensions -- we humans are the explorers of the universe in these body spacesuits. We are the invaders. Evolution is the mechanism. God like beings grow new universes. Our bodies are the machines of loving grace as we go through the terror, pain, etc to find new knowledge for 'god' aka whatever alien hierarchy we are part of.

No I don't believe. Who knows?
 
To the idealists here: isn’t the river, any river, part of your consciousness just like a mountain, a road, a cat or another person?
This is the problem with Idealism, it is far too bigger conceptual leap to take in one go.

Ultimately if Idealism is true, it may be obvious why the econsciousness of a river is different from that of you and I - as it is, I think we would be better to move to dualism as a first step.

Cats have their own quirky consciousness, which is why they are much better in the house than they are in stupid court battles

David
 
This is the problem with Idealism, it is far too bigger conceptual leap to take in one go.

Ultimately if Idealism is true, it may be obvious why the econsciousness of a river is different from that of you and I - as it is, I think we would be better to move to dualism as a first step.

Cats have their own quirky consciousness, which is why they are much better in the house than they are in stupid court battles

David
I like idealism. Its viable. We still need oxygen to form memories and the brain transplant is going to work. And when we have the technology, brain recordings will show nothing occurring during an nde, but new memories forming upon waking / heart pumping again.

Actually, doesn't that thought experiment deserve its own thread? What will future devices record during an nde? If it shows 'x', then what?
 
I like idealism. Its viable. We still need oxygen to form memories and the brain transplant is going to work. And when we have the technology, brain recordings will show nothing occurring during an nde, but new memories forming upon waking / heart pumping again.
I think my point is that while many of us here lean towards to Idealism as the ultimate answer, it is no use as a step in the ladder of scientific theiries - because it seems to just predict that anything can happen.

I would like to see a more modest scientific theory so that people can actually start to gather data about non-material phenomena. The crazy thing is that at the moment science just dismisses such phenomena because it can't label them as evidence for a particular theory. Aftre enough data has been collected, the step from that modest theory to the full theory may be less daunting.

I think if brain transplants ever happen, they will probably be better classed as body transplants. BTW, some strange phenomena have been noted around transplants - particularly heart transplants. Some people seem to take on the likes and dislikes of the organ donor.
Actually, doesn't that thought experiment deserve its own thread? What will future devices record during an nde? If it shows 'x', then what?
I'm not sur eI understand that rematk.

David
 
I think my point is that while many of us here lean towards to Idealism as the ultimate answer, it is no use as a step in the ladder of scientific theiries - because it seems to just predict that anything can happen.

I would like to see a more modest scientific theory so that people can actually start to gather data about non-material phenomena. The crazy thing is that at the moment science just dismisses such phenomena because it can't label them as evidence for a particular theory. Aftre enough data has been collected, the step from that modest theory to the full theory may be less daunting.

I think if brain transplants ever happen, they will probably be better classed as body transplants. BTW, some strange phenomena have been noted around transplants - particularly heart transplants. Some people seem to take on the likes and dislikes of the organ donor.

I'm not sur eI understand that rematk.

David
I see your point.

As for the thought experiment, its all about changing your mind. Being scientific in part means being honest about what data would change your mind BEFORE you get that data. Not claiming I know what would happen given good visual or auditory output from the brain prior, during, and after 'waking up' from a heart arrest.

Btw, on that note, wouldn't it be nice if we had a contact working with the new telescopes for verifying ufo data? The telescopes data is planned to be open source! Would need some expertise to know if this matters or not.

 
Yes! Who has access to the raw data? If enough people elected the right congress persons, would we get it? I doubt it. If they were a threat, we wouldn't be here. Nothing to push the public to demand change.
Maybe not a threat globally, but it seems they do mess with people on a personal level. And if these contacts are continually kept out of mainstream news, I can't see much of a change happening. Unless some duplication of techno occurs by us through the efforts of the TTSA group.
 
Maybe not a threat globally, but it seems they do mess with people on a personal level. And if these contacts are continually kept out of mainstream news, I can't see much of a change happening. Unless some duplication of techno occurs by us through the efforts of the TTSA group.
Its odd pondering if multiple alien species exist. Truth is, they are so advanced, potentially, they might be in charge of this reality. Do we have evidence of physical torture? Not exactly. Unless Howard Storm checks that box for you.

And compare their treatment of us versus our treatment of tasty animals. There is a transhumanist that believes animals should be saved from human consumption. However you feel about that, most believe animals are conscious TASTY creatures. If a pet, don't eat. And so on. I mean we go crazy over potential deaths of children, not even sperm meeting egg zygotes! Catholics.

I don't trust my own reasons for morality anymore than i trust the field of consciousness science. Be honest. Look around. Too much disagreement there over time. And I still wonder. What is this place?
 
Last edited:
As for the thought experiment, its all about changing your mind. Being scientific in part means being honest about what data would change your mind BEFORE you get that data.
A good point. In my case, given that I haven't had enough personal experience of psychic phenomena, I think if I saw AI powered cars driving through all our streets, under all conditions which we cope with, dealing with potholes, and roadworks, preferably relying on just the data we use - no laser range finders, and no GPS (which means you don't need to visually figure out sign posts) then I'd have to think seriously about becoming a materialist again. Such cars would also have to drive at reasonable speed, and, of course, have a good safety record.

David
 
A good point. In my case, given that I haven't had enough personal experience of psychic phenomena, I think if I saw AI powered cars driving through all our streets, under all conditions which we cope with, dealing with potholes, and roadworks, preferably relying on just the data we use - no laser range finders, and no GPS (which means you don't need to visually figure out sign posts) then I'd have to think seriously about becoming a materialist again. Such cars would also have to drive at reasonable speed, and, of course, have a good safety record.

David
Ok but if you believe it doesn't require more computation but consciousness, wouldn't that be a mystical worldview? I mean, hey, idealism implies mysticism to me. I think they can be disasociated.

Thus I predict one possible future: a draconian force creates humanoid slaves, claiming all tests show minimal consciousness -- less than insects. Docile. Loves to serve. And don't say impossible! We sleep walk. No scientists asleep are doing research but these are only examples not proof.
 
Top