prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) (10/15/86)
I'll keep this short, getting ready to go to England for a few weeks... In article <2556@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >Of course, "psychic" power alone knows no biological limits! You think it's a fantasy, and fantasy has no biological limits. Please open your mind to some of the more moderate views on this subject; "if" psi does exist, it "probably" *does* have biological limits. I think you have what Casteneda called a "need to believe" that *all* psi claims are fraudulant or deluded. Some are, but not all. Both the pro and con sides of argument (myself included) tend to have a "need to believe" clouding their judgement of others' arguments and claims, but one can make an effort to set that prejudice aside. I make the effort, but I'm not sure you know that you have such blinders on. Which is why this topic is so appropriate on net.physics or some close relative such as sci.misc (feel free to spin off *that* topic, too, but I won't have time to reply...) - Phil prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens) or: prs@oliveb.UUCP or: {get to 'nike' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs {I *think* this will work everywhere}
6090617@PUCC.BITNET (Robert Wald) (10/15/86)
In article <115@oliveb.UUCP>, prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) writes: >Which is why this topic is so appropriate on net.physics or some close >relative such as sci.misc (feel free to spin off *that* topic, too, but >I won't have time to reply...) What ever happened to mod.psi, where this discussion really belongs? I thought it was an official newsgroup, but its never been posted to (nothing here, at least). Was it removed? -Rob Wald (Princeton University Information Services) 6090617@PUCC.BITNET Applelink: A0181 UUCP: ...allegra!psuvax1!PUCC.BITNET!6090617 "Yes! That's right! The answer is 'Wisconsin'! Another 50 points for God, and ... uh-oh, looks like Norman, our current champion, hasn't even scored yet." 'My hovercraft is full of eels'
ranjit@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ranjit Bhatnagar) (10/17/86)
In article <2556@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >> [I wrote] >< it. We can imagine that the production of overpowering psychic distraction >< requires little more resources than does thought. ^^^^^^^ >You can imagine whatever you want. That's precisely the problem with "psychic" >power. Since no one knows what it is, one can imagine that psychic powers >have exactly those properties that overcome whatever objection anyone puts >to them. How convenient. Like the omnipotent God, the existence of such >undefined powers is eminently not disprovable. I could imagine that psychic powers are powered by tiny nuclear reactors in the pituitary gland. However, I instead imagined that they are related to the process of _thought_, which is not an unreasonable assumption to make. Now, (I can't resist this:) for MOST OF US, the process of thought does not consume great amounts of resources. For instance, I can believe six impossible things BEFORE breakfast. Summary: if telepathy exists, its mechanism is related to that of thought. If its mechanism is related to that of thought, then its resource consumption is related to that of thought. If the resource consumption of thought is low, then the resource consumption of telepathy is low. ><< the development of these senses was highly favorable evolutionary. [I wrote] >< So was the development of the skunk's scent. But biological limits make >< it hard to create a really effective , permanent, unconscious sensory >< distraction. >Of course, "psychic" power alone knows no biological limits! In the same sense that thought and reasoning knows no biological limits. You might as well argue that thought is impossible. (hmm. Not a bad idea...) .......(o o)....... ranjit@cory.berkeley.edu ---vvv---U---vvv--- ucbvax!cory!ranjit "Irrationality is the square root of all evil" - Douglas Hofstadter
jmil@homxb.UUCP (J.MILLER) (10/20/86)
> Summary: if telepathy exists, its mechanism is related to that of thought. > If its mechanism is related to that of thought, then its resource consumption > is related to that of thought. If the resource consumption of thought is > low, then the resource consumption of telepathy is low. This summary concludes an argument intended to defend the possibility that "the production of overpowering psychic distraction requires little more resources than does thought." Why don't we look at the above summary as it applies to a KNOWN sense? > Summary: if speech exists, its mechanism is related to that of hearing. > If its mechanism is related to that of hearing, then its resource consumption > is related to that of hearing. If the resource consumption of hearing is > low, then the resource consumption of speech is low. Is this a plausible defense of the possibility that "the production of overpowering sonic distraction requires little more resources than does hearing" on a continuous basis? Try it with sight or smell. A little analogy goes a long way. Joe Miller
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (10/21/86)
>,>>> ranjit@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ranjit Bhatnagar) >> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) >>> We can imagine that the production of overpowering psychic distraction >>> requires little more resources than does thought. >>You can imagine whatever you want. > I could imagine that psychic powers are powered by tiny nuclear reactors > in the pituitary gland. However, I instead imagined that they are related > to the process of _thought_, which is not an unreasonable assumption to > make. Now, (I can't resist this:) for MOST OF US, the process of thought > does not consume great amounts of resources. For instance, I can believe > six impossible things BEFORE breakfast. Depends on what you mean by "great amounts". Thought is *not* trivial. During thought, the brain consumes significant amounds of sugars to power the chemical motor commonly called "the brain". Granted, the major motor muscles and the heart consume more. But the resources devoted to thought are not trivial. To draw this back to the original line of discussion, the original notion of the generating of masking "psychic waves" to confuse predators means that impulses of thought-stuff are "broadcast" without actually thinking the thoughts they indicate. The original rebutting point is that this ought to be no different than, say, seeming to having a shape that one does not "really" have, or a smell that one does not "really" have, or in general any sensory seeming that one does not "really" have. There is no particular reason to suppose that it is easier to think thoughts that one does not really think than it is to fake any other sensory trace an animal might leave. It is therefore not so much a question of resource consumption, but practicality of altering thinking structure to produce "fake thoughts" while retaining the ability to think "real thoughts". And again, there is no reason to suppose that this is more practical than altering the physical structure to have a "fake shape" while retaining the ability to function in some more "real shape". -- I've always had the greatest respect for other people's crackpot beliefs. --- Sam the eagle -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
ranjit@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ranjit Bhatnagar) (10/22/86)
In article <2057@homxb.UUCP> jmil@homxb.UUCP (J.MILLER) writes: > Summary: if speech exists, its mechanism is related to that of hearing. > If its mechanism is related to that of hearing, then its resource consumption > is related to that of hearing. If the resource consumption of hearing is > low, then the resource consumption of speech is low. > >Is this a plausible defense of the possibility that "the production of >overpowering sonic distraction requires little more resources than >does hearing" on a continuous basis? Yes, if you change the word "speech" to "sound production" to make the analogy more correct. And if you believe that the mechanisms for sound and hearing are related, which they are not. Though I once knew a guy who could make his ears click by holding his nose and exerting his lungs :-). Perhaps a better analogy would be: If radio transmitters exist, their mechanism is related to that of walkmen. If its mechanism is related to that of walkmen, then its resource consumption is related to that of walkmen. Walkmen run on AA cells. Therefore radio transmitters run on AA cells. Since I'm tired of arguing against my own beliefs, I hereby retire from this argument. Thanks for the mental exercise, folks! .......(o o)....... ranjit@cory.berkeley.edu ---vvv---U---vvv--- ucbvax!cory!ranjit "Irrationality is the square root of all evil" - Douglas Hofstadter