KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU (11/16/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
From: cartan!ucbcad!nike!think!husc6!husc4!hadeishi@UCB-Vax.arpa (mitsuharu hadeishi)
}i I believe the original thread of the argument was the
evolutionary advantage/disadvantage of telepathy. My point was
that the following possibility was being overlooked: since it is
only human beings who can report telepathic events through language,
we can only say for sure that telepathy is not common in
humans. We cannot say the same for animals.
We know a lot about animal senses. We know which animals are
colorblind, we know that bees see a different set of primary colors
than people do, we know that dogs and cats can hear frequencies higher
than people can, we know that bats use sonar, that snakes have IR
sensors, and that sharks can detect electric fields.
We didn't have to converse with any animals to determine this, we
only had to observe their behavior under controlled conditions. No
such experiment has ever given good evidence for any unexplainable
sense, or for anything like telepathy.
Saying that animals have telepathy but we can never tell this
because they don't speak is about as useful as claiming that oranges
are only orange in the light, but are always purple with pink polka-
dots in total darkness.
My hypothesis was that because of the large differences between the
human and animal mind, it may well be that telepathic ability in humans
is simply supressed; particuarly because in the current era we have a
"common-sense" world view which excludes telepathy as a possibility.
Could be. It could be that I could turn lead into gold by staring at
it if only I got over my neurotic hangup that it can't be done. But is
there any evidence?
Perhaps no telepathy is observed because the "common-sense" world
view excludes it. On the other hand, perhaps the "common-sense" world
view excludes telepathy because it is never observed. Why do you
insist on the former view as the only possibility?
However, there is a large amount of evidence that ancient
cultures and primitive cultures believe in various different accounts
of psychic phenomena.
I don't doubt it. Most of them also believed in a lot of other
things such as their inherent superiority over all other races and
nations of mankind, that their religion is the one true religion and
that people who disagree with it should be put to death, and that
nature is chaotic and incomprehensible to man. Ours is the first
culture in human history NOT to have these beliefs. At least most of
us don't have these beliefs. I hope.
Don't you think we have done pretty well? No amount of mumbo jumbo
or human sacrifices or prayer or psychic power has been able to create
anything like this network, or the keyboard you are typing at, or
electric lights, or central heat, or the four walls around you, or the
food you eat, or ANYTHING AT ALL. Despite having been the predominant
idea of all mankind for thousands of years. Think about it.
My hypothesis was, further, that we have simply forgotten how to listen
to our "sixth sense";
I could hypothsize that you are actually a magic alien doggie from
Sirius III. Reproducable evidence is what matters, not baseless
hypothesis.
and that in the past, when we did not rule out the possibility in
our world view, people were much more inclined to listen to this
"sixth sense."
Don't despair, plenty of people still hear voices from God, etc.
Many of them can be found in lunatic asylums. Others can be found
running for president.
This would provide an explanation as to why psychic phenomena do not
manifest themselves as often today as they might have in the past.
So would the theory that there are no psychic phenomena.
I believe you failed to see my point. What I meant was, I was
able to detect the unusual nature of the event BEFORE it was verfied
to be a "coincidence." ...
If you can prove this you will quite likely become famous and win the
Nobel prize. Please forgive me for thinking that it is more likely
that you are mistaken than it is that physics need be completely
rethought.
What I don't understand about your attitude is your clinging
to your ideas about how the world works as if your life depended on it.
The feeling is mutual.
I consider myself a lover of truth. I don't like to see things I
believe are false stated without counterargument. Would I be dismayed
if psychic powers existed? No. I would be quite amazed and somewhat
pleased. But I don't think that their existance is likely.
People tend to believe things for no better reason than that it
pleases them to think so and dismays them to think otherwise.
Centuries of horror and tyranny can be blamed on this tendency:
o OUR religion is right, hence others must be abolished as leading
man astray.
o Blacks are suited only for slavery, thus all oppression of them is
justified.
o We don't need to improve life on Earth because we will all live
happily ever after in heaven if we are sure to always obey our
bishops.
And today:
o We don't need to worry about future sources of energy, since cosmic
psychic pyramid power will soon produce unlimited electric power
and good vibes.
o We don't need to worry about medical science, since disease comes
only from thinking negative thoughts.
o Faster Than Light travel is certainly possible, allowing us to
easily colonize other solar systems.
o It doesn't matter what happens to Earth since the Second Coming
will happen any day now.
... What is clear is that you should not confuse the map with the
territory; just because your map doesn't have any symbols for "psychic
phenomena" on it doesn't mean they're not out there.
My world atlas doesn't have a symbol for Atlantis either. Perhaps
it doesn't because there IS no Atlantis. It seems you would assume the
wnve~rrse regardless of evidence (i.e. if we haven't found Atlantis it
MUST BE simply because those closed-minded map-makers don't put it on
the map!)
I would personally take a much more skeptical view of my own
conception of how the world works . . . to me that is TRUE skepticism.
You are not skeptical at all. Whenever anyone suggests that your
world view might be mistaken, you start with the ad hominem attacks,
and don't bother with reason or discussion.
...Keith