Rape (is also Re: Turing, A.I. and ESP

[rj]

jp
> Whether E.S.P. exists or not is hardly
> the only point here.

Is it perhaps correct to take the fact that Turing only "entertained the
possibility of E.S.P." as *proof* that he did not possess the faculty
himself, but had merely observed it, whether empirically or no? I
believe this is a legitimate inference, and I'm not sure that it has
been adequately addressed, either by Turing, or in the discussion here.

This, for me, raises some intriguing and disturbing questions. It would
seem not only to separate humans from mechanical computing machines, but
also humans from humans. The existence of ESP, if it were to be proven,
would absolutely decimate and debilitate much in our legal, ethical,
cultural, social and political systems and protocols, along with the
attitudes which form these. These questions *precede* the Turing test:
they prevent the Turing test from being carried out to start with.
Further, computers, which at present can only imitate what we consider
to be human senses and skills, would then first need be reprogrammed to
accept that this is a faculty which *some* humans possess -- already too
much of a variable I think -- even before any steps towards actually
programming this faculty into a (/some but not all?) computer/s could be
made.

If ESP is a volitional faculty, and accepting that it, like all human
faculties, could be used for selfish ends, or in ways which are hurtful
to and undesired by others, then would it be fair to regard it in some
cases as not only criminal but unjust (inhumane? inhuman?) as well?
Let's take breach of copyright (or plagiarism, which is really only an
extreme version of intertextuality if we posit a spectrum from
absolutely "original" to totally "copied") as the example. The laws of
the land do not accommodate the cases where an ESPie -- quite flagrantly
-- violates the code of practice *before* the poor dumb non-ESPie sucker
can get his automatic, self-determining toenail clipper to the patents
office.

This is a spurious example, but I submit that in some instances, where
we have an ESPie and a non-ESPie, then the practice of this faculty by
the former on the latter is a form of physical assault, an unwanted
invasion of the body. (Token reference to GR -- 634.15)

If ESP is indeed *not* a volitional faculty then only madness could
ensue for a human, for there is x approaching infinity amount of thought
around and about I would say, so some form of volitional selection or
filtering process must necessarily apply or else the human brain of the
ESPie explodes. (A machine, of course, with a large enough "mind", could
theoretically accommodate this latter dilemma. But a sentient machine
with ESP poses a whole heap of other problems, because it would
necessarily be *more* perfectly human than any human. Which is what I
was getting at with imperfection, instinct and irrationality as
irrevocably "human" traits --> limitations, flaws. Such a machine would
instantly decide that humans were lesser beings to it, and so, like HAL,
assert its authority rather than trusting human commands, unless there
were certain pre-programmed Asimovian laws in place, in which case it
would not be wholly "human"/independent anyway.)

> It is not enough to dismiss it as whimsy, or
> some Sokol-like poke in the eye of naive believers.

Computers can certainly generate random texts which sound like the real
thing -- someone posted the url of a postmodern essay generator a few
months back. This isn't so far from what Sokal was doing with his
original hoax in 'Social Text'. (I'm not so sure it isn't what
*Finnegans Wake* is on about in part as well. Certainly *Alphabetical
Africa*, or Raymond Roussell.)

Insofar as a computer is a (bio-?)mechanical extension of its human
"master" -- which in the case of a pc is its owner/user rather than the
hardware and software developers -- then when another individual (via
the conduit of their machine, which is also a similar extension of their
humanity) intrudes into the space of the computer (containing the
*human* thoughts of the first user) it is a criminal and ethical
violation of the same order and magnitude as that of the example of ESP
outlined above. 

ESP, and computer hacking, are in some cases violations of the human
person commensurable with the crimes of burglary, premeditated assault,
and rape. This, both from whatever current legal, ethical or denotative
criterion you wish to apply, as from the *feeling* of the victim, as
well, I will assume, from the *intent* of the perpetrator.

best