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

[rj]

jp
> 
> I don't see any evidence for the type of phenonmenon you are describing,
> unless I have been duped!

Well, no, but we, like Turing, have been operating in a purely
hypothetical realm, by conscious and deliberate choice. "Evidence" is
beside the point.

> How about "adepts," it's easier to say.

OK: "adepts" and "non-adepts".

> I would suggest that the above is more of an inference by you than an
> implication by Turing or Turing's uncertainty

Turing says:
> Unfortunately the
> >statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, >is overwhelming. It is very
> >difficult to rearrange one's ideas so as to fit these new facts in.

He does not say "I possess an ESP faculty." He does not say that ESP is
a proven fact. Therefore, I think the inference that Turing envisages
only some humans as adepts is a legitimate one. Similarly, ESP is not
amongst the corpus of generally-accepted scientific facts, then or now.
This means that if there are adepts, then they will certainly recognise
and accept ESP as a scientific fact, some non-adepts will also believe
it to be a fact, but a large percentage (a majority, imo) of non-adepts
either do not accept it is a fact or, like you, choose to remain
agnostic on the subject.

I do not understand what this "safeguard against abuse" could be. In the
situation I have posited the non-believing non-adept, even the believing
non-adept, are powerless to construct any sort of firewall against
potential violation by an adept.

I admit that your scenario, where an adept and a non-adept have
developed a mutually-conducive pathway -- a delicate channel, though it
is still very much one-way -- is much more egalitarian. But even here
the adept still has the potential to create such pathways elsewhere, by
choice, where the non-adept does not. It still relies on the essential
goodwill of the adept. The adept could deceive the non-adept at any
time, whereas the non-adept could never do this.

> But if E.S.P. happens to
> exist, why would it be any different than other human skills which can go
> either way, but like language is used best by the good guys, like us.

This is the point I have made all along. Not an "extra"-sensory faculty,
something "outside" sensory peception, but another sense, or skill. An
extra, as in additional, sense. The analogy with language is not a
refutation either, because learning relies on sensory inputs as well. 

> Again, you are assuming it can be a one way street

Yes. I have posited adepts and non-adepts within human society, an
observation I believe is implicit in Turing's paper.

> as if the "non-ESPie"
> had no will

No, both are still "human", possessing will, emotion, quirks et. al,
except that the non-adept does not possess this "sense", or skill. Like
the difference between a sighted person and a blind person in a game of
charades, say. 

> Again, you are assuming it can be a one way street...as if the "non-ESPie"
> had no will, in which case, why bother with something fuzzy like E.S.P.,
> Darth Vader could just Tell them what to do, or demand they tell him their
> thoughts, outright.

It's a sense, or skill, not a power or weapon per se, though it could
certainly be put towards such ends. You yourself made much the same
point, I thought, viz:
 
> The concept of the paranormal, because of its surreptitious and concealed
> nature, is upsetting to our notions of order- especially social order, and
> the various hierarchies of priviledge that are so maintained. It is not
> easily controlled. Even those who covet its "power" would seem to have a
> difficult time making use of it in a dependable way. At times, it seems
> more of a "wistful" luddite "pipe dream"- you can see where I'm heading...

(new point)

> I was not claiming that E.S,P, existed in a particular way, but made those
> alternative proposals to see if you would still have reservations. 
I gather
> you wouldn't, but seem to hear you saying that the potential evil of such a
> phenomenon would cause you to slam shut any window that might be open. 

I was very deliberate in my post. I wrote "in some instances" and "in
some cases". I made no pretension to incorporate all cases, and
certainly have not said that I personally would or have shut windows. In
fact, I have consistently entertained the possibilities that both you
and Turing have presented. I believe "evil" to be an entirely subjective
description, and merely cited Wiener as another example of a scientist
of the time thinking beyond the specific scientific hypothesis to the
social/metaphysical consequences of its application.

> Turing's test allows the human's to provide recognition of
> intelligence in the machine, because it is an "observer-relative"
> phenonmenon. E.S.P., surprisingly, in the context of the test, is an
> objective, observer-independent phenonmenon- i.e., it can be objectively
> measured rather than subjectively inferred from the logical coherence or
> context of the answers.

No. You are assuming that the adept will want to tell the truth about
her or his adeptness. Or that both humans in the Turing test are adepts.
Neither is the case. As I understand it, the two human participants in
the test do not necessarily possess ESP, let alone the idealised ESP
adept-to-adept facility you propose. If there is an adept and a
non-adept, the adept may also choose to conceal their adeptness, to
deliberately get the ESP portions of the Turing test wrong. You said
yourself that it was no-holds-barred. And as long as the machine has
been programmed to know that there are some human adepts and some
non-human adepts the same sorts of rebuttals and refutations can apply
("I do have ESP but I'm lying to you about it.") This is why I say that
the ESP question precedes Turing's test. I posited a machine, an adept
and a non-adept: but who's zooming who? And why?

> E.S.P. need not be contextual or logical. It just
> can't be random.

But it can be covert, and *purport* to be random.

The validity of a theoretical model such as this one, as with
Schrodinger's cat, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or quantum
theory, say, depends upon its applicability to the particular phenomena
it addresses in the real world. Turing's Test, once the possibility of
ESP is introduced, has too many variables to be truly valid.
Nevertheless his paper raises many many very valid questions and
dilemmas, as you have said, and is quite an amazing and prescient
meditation on the various issues which you, Seb and others have raised
and discussed.

Sorry if this sounds stentorian or arrogant in tone or substance. It is
not intended to be.

best