[Jolly2 (OP)]

Graham Handcock for a while now has been arguing for psyci-soverignity. Or sovereignty of consciousness.
https://mountainvision.blogspot.com/2012/11/graham-hancock-sovereignty-of.html?m=1

Drugging people is a crime under human rights law currently anyway. Not that any of the security services of the west in anyway respect the rule of law.

But aside from mankind having the right to not be secretly drugged by the security services as a means of social control. What else should be included in the sovereignty of consciousness package?

Obviously we are not fully aware of everything human kind is capable of but on discovering new abilities, capabilities, and capacities. What should mankind be given the right to be free from?

We are all under negative liberty and so, meant to be free from persecution.
But sadly as Julian Assange is a perfect testament, negative freedom is, it appears a simple lie and more about social control than it is about freedom from anything.

So what do you all think? what rights should be included in the soverignity of consciousness package?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Anyone else hear cracking?

[puppypower]

So what do you all think? what rights should be included in the soverignity of consciousness package?

We would need to make fake news a crime,  since bad information and data can never lead one to the correct reality conclusions, no matter how accomplished your skills are at logic. This bottleneck can cause consciousness to lose touch with reality. This is not much different from the media using a drug to alter your perception of reality. In both cases, you will end up making poor judgements. 

As an analogy, say I asked a leading chef, to cook me a gourmet meal. I give the chef spoiled food ingredients to make the meal. This spoiled food is analogous to the bad data from propaganda and fake news. The highly skilled chef, may go through all his precision cooking steps needed to process the food with skill; expert analysis. The final product may even look like it came out of a magazine. However, the meal will still make you sick, due to bad data ingredients. The skills of the expert chef are not enough to overcome bad ingredients except at serving time. Tough and rancid meat stays that way even with a skilled chef who can pretty the serving plate. 

Information is food for the mind. Gourmet reasoning and thinking, like an expert rational chef, needs first rate ingredients to make a first rate product.  Bad ingredients, like zero fraud in the 2020 election, is how you make poison apples. All previous elections had some degree of fraud, so to claim zero fraud is like giving the expert chef, some bad meat covered in maggots. This may look good when served, but will it taste nasty, which is why there nothing but denial and censor but no investigation to prove the denial claim. Everyone knows how spoiled food will turn out, if you eat it up with an investigation.

Free speech also needs to be part of sovereignty of consciousness. Defining truth is not always easy, especially in new areas of study, as well as in development work; developing new ideas. Freedom of speech allows everyone the opportunity to brain storm possible data and analysis, so we can all have a better chance at finding the best ingredients. This is different from freedom of the press since the press has more protections from accountability for telling the truth as well as the lie. This may need to change if we want a consciousness bill of rights. 

When FaceBook and Twitter censors free speech; allows some POV's, but not for all POV's, this is called data stacking. It is designed so the wrong conclusions will be reached, based on the one side available and/or allowable data. Since information is food for the mind, FaceBook becomes a type of slaughter house; killing what it sees as sick animals so they can sell bad beef. This slaughter house may need an investigation.

The way you deal with fake news and it's bad data, is to not judge it in the moment, even if your gut and experience tells you it is selling you bad meat. Rather one should try wait for say one month to a year, so there is water under the bridge. The reason is, bad news and lies get out of the starting blocks faster than the truth. More people seem to want to believe the worse than the best, since worse makes them feel better about themselves. The lies always starts out fast, but it cannot complete the race, since it is bad food for thought, and it will make you sick, eventually. However, even bad food takes some time before it makes gives you diarrhea. Truth will stay fresh, but it takes time until the contrast is clear on the toilet.

Typically what happens, initially, is those who are most eager to eat bad food, will use this data as part of their reasoning train. This logical synthesis of the data is similar to a scientist making an equation that fits the data. They will then look for further proof, via predictions made by the final equation. However, since bad food will make you sick, this is never achieved. However, it still may take some time to get past denial and accept; water under the bridge.

Does anyone remember the Russian collusion delusion narrative; rotten pork. Even with stacking the investigation deck; 20 angry Democrats lawyers, they still ended up with a spoiled food product, due to the bad starting ingredients. Those who initially most eagerly ate at that diner, went through a phase of hugging the porcelain princess, before feeing better. This is what information food poisoning can do.

Say you were a young adult. You have been fed bad information food, from an early age, via the educational system. If you eat bad food all the time, from childhood, you may get used to the taste, since that is all you know. Your body may even get used to digesting it without always being on the toilet, afterwards. This is like living in a third world country, where good food is scarce and sicknesses are high. Many will get sick and never recover; partisans with blinders. Others will learn to spice up that bad food, so it tastes better; activists and rioters.

All types of problems can be traced back to a bad information food supply, that has been spoiled and/or contaminated by our fellow humans, seeking power and money. The question is why don't we allow the biological food suppliers to make false claims about the purity of its food products, since we allow this with the information food supply? The biological food suppliers will harm the body, while the second harms consciousness.

One answer is we have a body bill of rights to protect the body from poisons in the food supply, ed but we do not have a consciousness bill of rights for poisoned food for the mind. A consciousness bill of rights should include a commission on information purity, using a time delayed standard,  since the lie always gets out the starting blocks, faster, and can fool those used to and who crave bad food.

[Bored chemist]

We would need to make fake news a crime,

That's an idea.

The problem is that you and I have different opinions on what is fake,

One way to answer the question of where the Corona virus originated is to ask who had the needed resources and the need to develop such a virus in the lab?

My view tends to be based in logic an evidence (very similar viruses are present in the wild and could easily change; Covid would be a piss poor bioweapon)
You seem to base your view on whatever conspiracy theory gives you a chance to pontificate as if you are knowledgeable.

Does anyone remember the Russian collusion delusion narrative;

I imagine that many people remember it- especially Roger Stone as he was sentenced to jail for covering it up.
Paul Manafort is in a similar position.

So, the courts accept that there really was something in the Russian collusion story.
They rely on evidence.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So what do you all think? what rights should be included in the soverignity of consciousness package?

We would need to make fake news a crime,  since bad information and data can never lead one to the correct reality conclusions,

Puppy the people in power are the biggest spreeders of fake news. They use it to start wars further their agendas, and generally as a means of social control.  To make fake news illegal,  will do nothing more then basically mean the outlawing of the truth under the current power structure,  your suggestion will just make things worse.

Free speech also needs to be part of sovereignty of consciousness.

I agree, however your first suggestion contradicts this.

Defining truth is not always easy, especially in new areas of study, as well as in development work; developing new ideas. Freedom of speech allows everyone the opportunity to brain storm possible data and analysis, so we can all have a better chance at finding the best ingredients. This is different from freedom of the press since the press has more protections from accountability for telling the truth as well as the lie. This may need to change if we want a consciousness bill of rights. 

When FaceBook and Twitter censors free speech; allows some POV's, but not for all POV's, this is called data stacking. It is designed so the wrong conclusions will be reached, based on the one side available and/or allowable data. Since information is food for the mind, FaceBook becomes a type of slaughter house; killing what it sees as sick animals so they can sell bad beef. This slaughter house may need an investigation.

The way you deal with fake news and it's bad data, is to not judge it in the moment, even if your gut and experience tells you it is selling you bad meat. Rather one should try wait for say one month to a year, so there is water under the bridge. The reason is, bad news and lies get out of the starting blocks faster than the truth. More people seem to want to believe the worse than the best, since worse makes them feel better about themselves. The lies always starts out fast, but it cannot complete the race, since it is bad food for thought, and it will make you sick, eventually. However, even bad food takes some time before it makes gives you diarrhea. Truth will stay fresh, but it takes time until the contrast is clear on the toilet.

Typically what happens, initially, is those who are most eager to eat bad food, will use this data as part of their reasoning train. This logical synthesis of the data is similar to a scientist making an equation that fits the data. They will then look for further proof, via predictions made by the final equation. However, since bad food will make you sick, this is never achieved. However, it still may take some time to get past denial and accept; water under the bridge.

Fake news always has an agenda attached to it.

Does anyone remember the Russian collusion delusion narrative; rotten pork. Even with stacking the investigation deck; 20 angry Democrats lawyers, they still ended up with a spoiled food product, due to the bad starting ingredients. Those who initially most eagerly ate at that diner, went through a phase of hugging the porcelain princess, before feeing better. This is what information food poisoning can do.

Say you were a young adult. You have been fed bad information food, from an early age, via the educational system. If you eat bad food all the time, from childhood, you may get used to the taste, since that is all you know. Your body may even get used to digesting it without always being on the toilet, afterwards. This is like living in a third world country, where good food is scarce and sicknesses are high. Many will get sick and never recover; partisans with blinders. Others will learn to spice up that bad food, so it tastes better; activists and rioters.

All types of problems can be traced back to a bad information food supply, that has been spoiled and/or contaminated by our fellow humans, seeking power and money. The question is why don't we allow the biological food suppliers to make false claims about the purity of its food products, since we allow this with the information food supply? The biological food suppliers will harm the body, while the second harms consciousness.

One answer is we have a body bill of rights to protect the body from poisons in the food supply, ed but we do not have a consciousness bill of rights for poisoned food for the mind.

Disagree rather then seeking a world without fake news, which will inherently make people more gullible people should be taught to think more and analyse information.

A consciousness bill of rights should include a commission on information purity, using a time delayed standard,  since the lie always gets out the starting blocks, faster, and can fool those used to and who crave bad food.

Informational purity, honestly some terrible ideas you have sometimes.

[Bored chemist]

Disagree rather then seeking a world without fake news, which will inherently make people more gullible people should be taught to think more and analyse information.

If we could do that, it would eliminate fake news. What would be the point of posting fake news if nobody believed it?

[evan_au]

Drugging people is a crime under human rights law currently anyway.

What do you do with people who insist on doing it to themselves?
- Do you treat them as criminals?
- That doesn't seem to have been too successful!

We would need to make fake news a crime,  since bad information and data can never lead one to the correct reality conclusions...
When FaceBook and Twitter censors free speech; allows some POV's, but not for all POV's, this is called data stacking.

These two statements seem contradictory.
- If you are going to stop fake news, you need someone who is suitably informed to take some control, and have the authority to tag fake news, or take it down entirely.
- But then you say that filtering information is undesirable?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Drugging people is a crime under human rights law currently anyway.

What do you do with people who insist on doing it to themselves?

Doing what to themselves? Thinking in ways the oligarchy dont like? Or just questioning too much?

- Do you treat them as criminals?
- That doesn't seem to have been too successful!

Honestly not sure what you are referencing. Criminals are criminals, sadly under the current circumstances,  the majority of the security services are criminals.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Disagree rather then seeking a world without fake news, which will inherently make people more gullible people should be taught to think more and analyse information.

If we could do that, it would eliminate fake news. What would be the point of posting fake news if nobody believed it?

Quite,  and it's a far better solution then banning the truth, which the establishment is seeking.

[puppypower]

Puppy the people in power are the biggest spreeders of fake news. They use it to start wars further their agendas, and generally as a means of social control.  To make fake news illegal,  will do nothing more then basically mean the outlawing of the truth under the current power structure,  your suggestion will just make things worse.

Science demonstrates that the truth in nature can be revealed. Why not use the methods of science to determine the truth versus the lie the it comes to con artist and fake news? Science is not a quickie decision maker based on the winds of emotion and opinion. This is why I suggested, water under the bridge, so there is enough time for all the data to tell us if this was truth or fake? Time also allows for cooler head who can move away from emotion and evolve to reason.

For example, the Congressman Schiff from California, said he had direct proof of Trump-Russian collusion, almost from the beginning of the accusation. If you take a short term emotional approach, to fake news and lies, you may have blindly accepted this. There was so much media and "expert" analysis and support. His claim got an investigation in motion, which seemed to  reinforce the lie. They would never investigate if it was not true and a leader has actual proof; right ?

However, here we are years later and he has never presented his proof.  One may have been fooled by the con, due to early emotions, but as a scientist, the longer term data, tells me that jail is now appropriate, since Schiff tried to sell contaminated food for thought, for personal gain. Time has a way of reaching the truth. The lie comes out of the starting blocks fast, but it cannot finish the race if the race is long.

 If Trump did not have such high prices defense lawyers the time scale may have been short enough to perpetuate the lie so the lie could win the race. Science, however, plays long ball and will change its mind as the data becomes more complete. There is no tim limit. Picture if Schiff knew, up front, he would be punished for running such a scam. Do you think he would fall on his sword for the cause,  or would he have lied to his peers to get out this future trouble?

The fact that fake news never  included this long term data of no proof, but has continued to plug the original short term induction, is proof to me, they were will accomplices to the lie and may need to need to pay. If a factory discharges chemicals into the drinking water and denies this, do we take them for their word? Or do we investigate if people are hurt in the process?

Freedom of the press is a honor is and not an obligation. Freedom of the press did not mean freedom to lie, although a liar may spin it this way. It was design to prefect the truth from power such as lying Schiff. What I would do, as punishment for this serious lie, is take away their press credentials, and open them up for liable and slander litigation. One made example would work, quickly, to get the rest in line.

Even if they lose their press credentials, they can still have freedom of speech, but will now be like you and I, who has to be careful what you say or else, victims can sue. This will not happen as long as the con artist like Schiff, make the laws. Laws can be designed to protect these criminals as well as their lies. Schiff was never investigated for lying about something so serious, due to this very reason. What I suggested could help thin that nasty herd, since liars will not be able to help themselves, but to lie.

The mind can never be free, if it is fed bad data that is made socially acceptable by other bad data. Science cannot work this way to determine the truth. The former is anti-science. If I force climate science to accept bad data could we ever tell the truth, The answer is yes, when the chickens come home to roost; hard reality kicks in. 

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Puppy the people in power are the biggest spreeders of fake news. They use it to start wars further their agendas, and generally as a means of social control.  To make fake news illegal,  will do nothing more then basically mean the outlawing of the truth under the current power structure,  your suggestion will just make things worse.

Science demonstrates that the truth in nature can be revealed.

No it doesn't,  it provides evidence that one idea or theory is more likely true then another.

Why not use the methods of science to determine the truth versus the lie the it comes to con artist and fake news?

Because science never has truth, truth is always off in the distance.  Science has evidence on the empirical scale always waiting to move, at best science has true enough,  but never TRUTH. And especially when science relies solely on evidence,  and evidence of what actually happened is lacking, science is completely left in the dark for an answer.

Science is not a quickie decision maker based on the winds of emotion and opinion.

Disagree, while being only rational is a pursuit of some, we all are human, with emotions,  they always interfere.

This is why I suggested, water under the bridge, so there is enough time for all the data to tell us if this was truth or fake?

Sadly with events,  perspective always interferes with the reading of an event,  if one country wins a battle, for the winning side it's a victory for the losing side a defeat. Which it is, in a broader context relates to the allies opinions, the consequences for others involved and who ever gets to write the history.

Time also allows for cooler head who can move away from emotion and evolve to reason.

Mankind are not robots nor should they seek to be robots.

For example, the Congressman Schiff from California, said he had direct proof of Trump-Russian collusion

He lied as part of an agenda.

, almost from the beginning of the accusation. If you take a short term emotional approach, to fake news and lies, you may have blindly accepted this. There was so much media and "expert" analysis and support. His claim got an investigation in motion, which seemed to  reinforce the lie. They would never investigate if it was not true and a leader has actual proof; right ?

They all go together the lie makes an investigation,  the lies in the investigation leads to a prosecution and in Trumps case the prosecution fails, because it's all  a lie. The point is getting rid of his influence.

However, here we are years later and he has never presented his proof.  One may have been fooled by the con, due to early emotions,

Most people fooled by this are the people that Hate Trump.  They know it's all lies and dont care, or they just want to believe it.

but as a scientist, the longer term data, tells me that jail is now appropriate, since Schiff tried to sell contaminated food for thought,

No he played a role in an agenda, that failed, the people he was working for now have power, they are unlikely to punish a good servant that helped them.

for personal gain. Time has a way of reaching the truth. The lie comes out of the starting blocks fast, but it cannot finish the race if the race is long.

 If Trump did not have such high prices defense lawyers the time scale may have been short enough to perpetuate the lie so the lie could win the race.

Nothing to do with it the other side had just as expensive lawyers.

Science, however, plays long ball and will change its mind as the data becomes more complete. There is no tim limit. Picture if Schiff knew, up front, he would be punished for running such a scam. Do you think he would fall on his sword for the cause,  or would he have lied to his peers to get out this future trouble?

Umm RCT. He will always be protected by those he is serving so no.

The fact that fake news never  included this long term data of no proof, but has continued to plug the original short term induction, is proof to me, they were will accomplices to the lie and may need to need to pay.

Wake up, truth lies are all meaningless here, achieving the agenda is the only thing of importance to those running the operation.

If a factory discharges chemicals into the drinking water and denies this, do we take them for their word? Or do we investigate if people are hurt in the process?

Depends who has power over the regulators. Companies have in the past gone to great lengths to hide, bad practice from the public.

Freedom of the press is a honor is and not an obligation.

Nonsense its essential for a democracy to function.

Freedom of the press did not mean freedom to lie,

Free press is a relatively new phenomenon,  generally in the past the press was always the main vector for narrative control.  It's broken down with the internet and the elites want that power back.

although a liar may spin it this way. It was design to prefect the truth from power such as lying Schiff. What I would do, as punishment for this serious lie, is take away their press credentials, and open them up for liable and slander litigation.

Those laws already exist.

One made example would work, quickly, to get the rest in line.

Even if they lose their press credentials, they can still have freedom of speech, but will now be like you and I, who has to be careful what you say or else, victims can sue. This will not happen as long as the con artist like Schiff, make the laws. Laws can be designed to protect these criminals as well as their lies.

And often do

Schiff was never investigated for lying about something so serious, due to this very reason. What I suggested could help thin that nasty herd, since liars will not be able to help themselves, but to lie.

The mind can never be free, if it is fed bad data that is made socially acceptable by other bad data. Science cannot work this way to determine the truth. The former is anti-science. If I force climate science to accept bad data could we ever tell the truth, The answer is yes, when the chickens come home to roost; hard reality kicks in.

Climate science is full of bad data, should you dare challenge the imposed consensus, which science should never have, you will be targeted/labelled as a crank.

Not sure what this has to do with the actual thread.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Brain damage pink floyd

[puppypower]

Rights of human Psyci-soveringity should include truth, since truth, like good data in science, allows one to draw the best conclusions. This is important to all choices in life. For example, a good mate can be a source of happiness. If a perspective mate, was not sincere; bad data, we may draw the wrong best conclusion with the bad data, and end up with a life that is less than happy; Psyci-soveringty is lost.

If the used car salesman tell us that the car we hope to buy, will never need an oil change again, and you accept that premise, you might extrapolate the savings; best conclusion with the bad data. This may cause you to buy, but it will lead to problems, that should not have been, if the data was good. This adds stress and anger that can compromise Psyci-soveringty.

One solution is we could treat the information supply like the food supply. Just as bad food for the body can make you sick, bad information for the mind,can make you sick in the head. The serial killer is not in touch with reality data. However, his predator skills often show a high degree of rational function with bad data. When it was believed that witches were evil, and needed to be killed, this turned sane people into monsters, making bad choices. This was poison food for thought.

One of present day problems is the internet has create competition for the traditional sources of  information. Many have had to become more like "rags", trying to compensate and lure audience share with gossip and gimmicks. Truth and facts is boring to many people since it feels like school and tests.The National Enquirer "rag" type gossip is more exciting and is more like entertainment, which feels like after work.

The bonehead in the audiences, are demanding junk food and the media is willing to supply this for market share and profit. There is also a supply side competition, that goes beyond junk food for thought, all the way to contaminated food for thought.

Maybe we can use the FDA model as a template, food and drug administration, and make parallels between the food supply for the body and the  food supply for thought, and impose the same standards and fines. We need a clean food for thought supply if the goal is Psyci-soveringty.

I am not about restricting freedom of speech. However, we could label each source of food for thought as healthy or junk food, based on long term trends. They will then need to present there classification as an emblem at the corner of the TV screen, just like we do with nutritional breakdown posters in fast food joints. One will free eat what you want, but with a warning that some foods for thought, are bad for your mental health and can harm Psyci-soveringty, over the longer term.

CNN would have a sign junk food on the bottom right corners, that its food offerings are also rancid and contaminated. If you wish to eat, be careful and moderate, since this will cause heart problems over time; angry all the time.

[Bored chemist]

Do you guys realise that all the "bad things"  you are talking about are already illegal?
That may not stop them being done, but nor would more legislation.

[puppypower]

Do you guys realise that all the "bad things"  you are talking about are already illegal?
That may not stop them being done, but nor would more legislation.

Prohibition creates temptation because one size does not fit all. There will be some who need to be protected from themselves. However, there are more people who can moderate behavior. They will feel unnaturally restricted by the poor fit of the one size fits all criteria. The black market that appear is not regulated so junk food for thought quality goes down and more people get sucked it. This is why I like the free market approach for the food for thought supply. 

We do not create a fast food taboo, since it will go underground; black market,  and then greed will trickle up the food chain; judges on the payroll. With fast food, we allow it to be part of culture, to avoid the black market and the corruption. But we make the consumer aware that they need to be moderate. This is a good balance and avoids the pitfalls of taboos. There is no black market monopoly created, full of black marketeers who have no conscience when selling junk food for thought; drug addiction.

As an example of this in action if anyone in America who watch CNN too much,  gets angry all the time, they would be encouraged to watch less CNN, since that junk food is harming your mind. We are not saying that you cannot eat this stuff, but eat only enough to satisfy your need for gossip. Try not to eat so much as to brain wash yourself into anger. This can lead to brain damage, with these free marketeers more concerned about growing the bottom line than you mental health. 

I also like the idea of showing the programing menu and its caloric and nutritional intake, so people can make moderation choices when they feed. This can be done with emblems that need to be posted on their programming, to warn people this make taste good, but it is full of fat and sugar. If you want to avoid a "fat head" eat 10 only minutes each day and get the salad offering; weather.

One thing I did notice is there is no public funded watch dog group that teaches the consumer the tricks being used to manipulate people by politicians, media consultants, and media marketeers. In the end, all these groups sell food for thought. The Government, who normally provides watch dogs, is run by those who own a lot of stock in these fast food for thought industries. They will not show the tactics and antidotes, since they will not be able to manipulate to the same degree. I do this nobody will listen since it is not official. 

If a fast food chain added rendered animal fat, salt and sugar to all their offerings, this could increase sales, since all these hidden things will create a natural affinity for the animal body. This is not allowed by the watch dogs of food, but is it allowed by politicians, since they refuse to allow watch dogs in the own industries. Watch dogs are private and have no teeth.

A good example, is in the new Corona relief bill of the USA,  the House Democrats added an election pork barrel amendment which would force the tax payer, to pay politicians 3 times what they get in donations. If you donate 400 dollars to candidate X, they will get to skim, $1200 from the general tax fund. 

This may be pitched as good fast food, but the question becomes why do they need that extra money and/or what is it needed for? If you are a candidate, with no talent and no good ideas, but a line of bull, you will need more money for manipulation sciences. This extra money will go to handlers, bundlers, media time and consultants to feed junk food to the public at levels never seen before. A good candidate with good ideas, needs less mass manipulation, beyond countering mud slinging by bad candidates. This end result of his expansion of fast food for thought, means you can water down the talent pool and depend more on marketing for branding illusions. While these same people, have no plan to clean up the food for thought supply. Why would Democrats come up with such an idea?

A restaurant with good quality food, that is also good for you, can do well with only word of mouth. You try it once and you will be back. But a mediocre restaurant will need more marketing hype to generate the same excitement they will lack from word of mouth.

[Bored chemist]

  the House Democrats added an election pork barrel amendment which would force the tax payer, to pay politicians 3 times what they get in donations. If you donate 400 dollars to candidate X, they will get to skim, $1200 from the general tax fund. 

That's interesting, can you give us a link?