Alex_Krycek

Have you tried getting this person into the outdoors (nature)? For me regular day trips into nature for a short hike help considerably. Also, what sorts of coaching exercises have you done with them? Any structured goal setting or values clarification, that sort of thing? Usually depressed people have no direction and feel hopeless as a result. Structured goal setting can help that.

We shouldn't forget that if indeed mankind has been observed by aliens for any length of time, their suspicions about our destructive behavior will have been completely confirmed. They will have witnessed firsthand the scale of slaughter human beings have wrought not only on the animal kingdom (decimating the populations of countless species) but also on our own species, through countless episodes of genocide. Given the verifiable track record our species has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate, it would be completely insane to land in Times square and start handing out olive branches to such a species. Human beings have already proven the Dark Forest Theory to be entirely justified.

Well, of course there is a theoretical principle that would answer this question: an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.101102

It's classic game theory. -------------------- Option 1 >> assume benign or no intervention from aliens >> create no defensive contingencies >> in the event of no hostile alien visitation continue existing Option 2>>assume benign or no intervention from aliens >> create no defensive contingencies >> in the event of hostile alien visitation potentially go extinct Option 3>> assume hostile intervention from aliens despite no precedent >> create defensive contingencies >> in the event of hostile alien visitation increase odds of species survival commensurate to contingencies prepared for -------------------- In this set of options one can only logically choose Option 3, regardless of one's preexisting beliefs, since the consequences of extinction resulting from option 2 are so grave.

I read this theory; it's pretty terrifying - not least because it makes perfect sense. Another point it raises is the responsibility of the government. If you work in the national security apparatus of a competent nation state and there is not a serious program to defend against extraterrestrials, then that government is derelict in its duty. Why? Because we simply don't know what could be coming our way, we don't know what vessel might show up on our sandy white beaches some day and ruin our little island paradise. The only responsible course of action is to assume and prepare for the worst. I suppose this sentiment should be applied to the NEO threat as well.

No, it hasn't been debunked. The witnesses, of which there are dozens, stand by their description of events even today and are entirely credible in my view. And that psychologist was Dr. John Mack, head of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. It would be better to suspend your belief and watch the documentary before rushing to conclusions.

Discussion here about UAPs with Physicist Michio Kaku. He makes some interesting points about levels of civilization: planetary, stellar, and galactic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YebZyAzLZuc

Agreed. The list of likely outcomes if they did attempt communication would be rather discouraging: Immediate Death Imprisoned in a cage Studied and Dissected Paraded around and gawked at by the unwashed masses It seems more logical that they would be primarily interested in the planet, not necessarily human beings. Human beings only inhabit 10% of the planet. We only account for .01% of the life on Earth. Humans are a side show to the main attraction.

With the species you mentioned communication as an exchange of data manifests along different channels. Some species are limited to channels that humans have access to but have evolved beyond. Pheromones would be an example of this. Humans respond to pheromones subconsciously but it is not our primary channel of transmitting data, as it is with ants. Humans have evolved into a higher dimension of communication that involves semiosis - the transcription of signs and symbols - in order to relay meaning. Other mammals employ sound as humans do but have not evolved into semiotics, while some animals seem to have access to channels that humans do not. Some birds, for example, can see the Earth's mangnetic field, a process called magnetoreception, which is beyond human capability. This is to say nothing of the technology humans have developed to extend our sensory awareness beyond that attributable to physical evolution, allowing us to perceive a myriad of channels including the subatomic realm, spectrums of light, radiation,etc. So I think it would be reasonable to assume that an alien being could develop a communicative ability that is beyond our comprehension, simply by existing long enough in a different evolutionary environment. Similarly if we consider these channels as hierarchical levels, with chemical stimuli existing on a more basic level, sound further up the ladder, semiotics further still, and so on, then a more advanced being could feasibly "step down" this ladder to communicate, as humans can if we want to influence an ant or whistle to a dog. What the next levels on this hierarchy could potentially be is an interesting question.

The disparity in communicative ability wouldn't even have to be this extreme. Communication is only engaged in by intelligent beings if there is the perception of some meaningful exchange of data / information; absent this perceived value the initiative to communicate does not exist. Think of how many of your own species you have no interest in communicating with, even those who are comparably on par with you in terms of intelligence. If it is your perception that the energy expended in the interaction will not be redeemable in terms of meaningful data reciprocated by the interlocutor, communication becomes an exercise in futility rather quickly. This brings to mind Sam Harris's amusing diagram used in his "Can we build AI without losing control over it?" TED talk. Harris outlined a spectrum of intelligence with a normal human, John Von Neumann, a chicken, and a potential expanse of intelligence of which we cannot possibly fathom.

A very powerful speech by Matthew McConaughey, who is from Uvalde, Texas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD1EC48TTO0

Yeah, it is steep for a rental price. I think they're only streaming it through their website for now.

Did you catch The Ariel Phenomenon yet? Full length documentary about what happened at the Ariel School in 1994. https://arielphenomenon.com/

@OP. Have you considered the Holonomic Brain Theory proposed by David Bohm and Karl Pribram? If so, how would their ideas factor into your hypothesis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Holonomic_brain_theory

This argument brings to mind a film called Ex-Machina which I saw recently. An employee of a fictional big tech firm is tasked with assessing whether a robot truly possesses AI. Part of the dilemma is whether the robot has been purposefully crafted to present the illusion of AI - that is, to present to the observer all the criteria that would qualify it as true AI. The issue of course, if that this would be a mere charade, a parlor trick. So the creator of the robot had a secret test: to see if the robot could manipulate the human observer into letting it escape the research facility. The observer, being somewhat gullible and inexperienced with the opposite sex, was duped by the robot, thus it was able to escape, and passed the test as being truly "intelligent".

This assumes that reality is purely subjective based on one's own perception. I disagree.

The very act of hardware and software design is a transmission of impetus as an extension of the designers and not an infusion of conscious will. Very interesting opening premise. I see some connections with your ideas and Roger Penrose's work.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment to the US Constitution It should be noted that this amendment was written when the US had no standing army to protect itself (the founding fathers were opposed to a professional military, seeing it as a threat to liberty). Instead, Militias, informally assembled of the common man, were seen as more trustworthy protectorates of freedom. Nowadays one might question the relevance of a "well regulated militia" to the "security of a free State" when said "free state" has the most formidable military in the world.

It also makes the baddies job a lot easier when attacking the goodies.

Interesting report from David Pakman about Putin having Cancer. This has supposedly been verified by three independent sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD9-z-RZto8

Ironically this is the same argument the gun crowd uses to justify no change: "There is an infinitesimal chance of being killed in a mass shooting so its illogical to do anything about it."

The AR-15 is just a dressed up prop for the gun nerds. It's just a standard semi-automatic rifle with relatively low power compared to something like an M1 Garand or the new MCX Spear which is now commercially available. Nothing special about the AR except the marketing and how common it is. To answer your question IMO a handgun with stopping power (.45 calibre or greater) or a shotgun is the best for home defense. Rifles aren't practical in close quarters.

I don't see it as a conflation. When someone is attacked, many times that person is at a physical disadvantage. They are older, weaker, smaller in stature, etc. Despite how many Aikido videos you watch of an old woman flipping a 250 assailant, the reality is that the assailant prevails in that situation 9 times out of 10. Bigger, stronger, more violent people typically win the fight, unless the defender is particularly adept in martial arts, which most people are not. Thus it becomes entirely logical to level the playing field, to equip the weaker defender with a tool that can be wielded to render superior force against the stronger attacker: the firearm. In matters of exigent life and death when someone is under attack, this is the only way to give them a fighting chance. A splendid approach if you live in the suburbs. Don't know if you've been to America recently: it's tough to build trust with a meth addict who wants to break into your home. Unfortunately not everyone can come round for tea and biscuits for a good natured chat.

Yes, there is a very legitimate reason: self defense. We have a right to protect our homes, family, and property from criminals. Why would you want to disarm citizens and make them vulnerable to harm?

I believe the right to self defense is inalienable. If someone is attacked, they should have the means to defend their life (and by extension their liberty and happiness). The UK has a different view: you believe that a person does not have the right to self defense. This can be shown quite simply by your laws even against mace / pepper spray. Consequently, vulnerable populations are left undefended in the UK. For example, the amount of sexual violence against women in the UK is staggeringly high, and women in the UK can do little to nothing about it. https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/statistics-sexual-violence/ But remain on your high horse, all to preserve the myth that the UK is somehow a safer country for the vulnerable.