Rape, (1/2)

[rj]

> >This means that if there are adepts, then they will certainly recognise
> >and accept ESP as a scientific fact,
> 
> 
> Or as some other type of reality beyond the purview of science, something
> between the subjective and objective,

No. The ESP adept will know that the faculty -- sense or skill -- exists
in an objective and incontrovertible manner. It will be a proven fact,
from experience, just as the way any other sensory faculty is a proven
fact for the beholder. The ESP non-adept will perhaps possess this faith
you envisage.

> I'm agnostic w/r/t whether I'm a member of the class known as non-adepts. : )
> 
And I'm willing to accept the fact that all humans potentially possess
the sense, or skill, whether it be a vestigial or extremely advanced
phenomenon. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is possible that
there is a spectrum of ability in this as in other human skills, such as
language, or sport, or, perhaps better, memory, for example. But, in the
mind-to-mind transaction you mention, unless both parties have
recovered/developed the skill to an equal extent then there is an
inequilibrium. The channel is only a semi-permeable membrane: it is a
one way flow, from sender to receiver, particularly in cases where you
have an adept and a non-adept. I'm not talking about a spiritual medium
like Peter Sascha, or dream-channelling like Pirate; I'm talking about
live humans, ESP as a substantive phenomenon within the waking carnal
world. I think this is what Turing was talking about too.

> Unless "adeptness" requires willing participation to occur because the
> signal isn't strong enough to remain coherent if just one party is
> attempting communication. It either fizzles, or, becomes a projection of
> the "adepts" own psychic wish list.

This does not seem to be the case. It is one case, but not the case that
I have posited nor, I believe, what Turing envisages.

>  The non-adept
> becomes adept by definition, if a telepathic link develops, and it doesn't
> develop without active participation of all involved.

The non-adept remains unable to read the thoughts of the adept. This is
like saying the blind person becomes sighted by definition when a
sighted person tells him or her what he sees. Tell that to Gloucester.
In both cases it relies on the goodwill of the adept.

>  The link cannot be
> controlled from either side (too many bad movie and book plots seem to be
> clouding our vision here).

And those hokey "mediums" who did the talk show rounds in the 70s --
Doris Stokes was one I recall -- as well as your stereotypical sideshow
shyster ("Pick a card, any card.") In our discussion I think I have
remained within the bounds of scientific hypothesis, however. I might
have made references to ("bad"?) works of fiction, but it is my
contention that writers of fiction are no less equipped or expert on
matters such as these (all matters, in fact) than writers of science,
philosophy, law, theology et. al.

> "Adeptness" would be a shared state, not something that can be possessed by
> an individual, to be used at will.

Yes, this is the scenario you posit. 

> We are beyond Turing's paper. I don't accept your assumption of a one way
> street, here, or implicit in Turing's paper, which, given the paucity of
> his comments, remains shrouded for me. : )

I've addressed my commentary to Turing's paper, and Turing's test in
particular. You seem to be backtracking on earlier
speculations/inferences you made:

> One wonders if he felt that there was evidence for telepathy based on his
> experience at Bletchley Park during the war. The extreme urgency of that
> mission, and the absolute vital necessity for secrecy and unbreakable
> codes- Bletchley worked both to break and protect codes- must have required
> them to consider the possibility that E.S.P. was real, and to test for it,
> in order to protect their work. Also, the problem of keeping the fact that
> they had broken ENIGMA a secret, while still using the information gleaned
> to turn the tide of the war, must have required a sensitive appreciation of
> what appeared random (to the enemy) and what sequence of events might be
> contaminated with traces of intentionality- something a E.S.P. might be
> able to detect.

He was worried that ESP could be used for ill purposes, you seem to be
saying; that it isn't a product of mutual volition ("an agreement
reached . . . ").

> But a sighted person cannot see into the blind person's mind, in my
> scenario, unless the blind person shares the "vision," and the sharee is
> just as vulnerable and open as the sharer, because "the will" must be
> checked at the door.

You've mangled the analogy I made. It remains a function of the goodwill
of the adept how well the non-adept "sees": both in terms of sight and
telepathy. You said yourself that you envisage ESP as "synchronous and
dynamic".

> Yes, but look again. That's why it's both troubling and a wistful pipe
> dream. People are afraid of being controlled or not being in control. The
> above says nothing about the "skill" itself, more about the reactions of
> people who are afraid or defensive- i.e., reflexively looking for
> demarcations, or chasing demons up  trees.

No. You are talking from the point of view of the sceptic here. If we
accept, with Turing and however "unfortunately", that there are ESP
adepts out there, and that they know it (which of course they would),
then it is only "troubling" or a "wistful pipe dream" to those
non-adepts who are still unsure, still left speculating about its
existence. My next question would be: what have all the ESP adepts been
doing with it, or about it, for time immemorial? The copyright example I
cited previously is only one instance of an absolute multitude where the
ESP could turn their particular sense or skill to selfish profit or
pleasure. As I've been saying all along, it might as often be put to
"good" use as to "bad"; but there are no actual checks and balances on
it as there are on other human skills and senses in the protocols of
human law, science, ethics, theology which are currently in place, for
the sheer and simple reason that it is, at present, patently *not* an
accepted scientific fact.

I repeat my earlier thesis to you now:

> 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.

Sorry to preempt a second part of your message (?); perhaps we should
take it offlist, though I think Seb at least will be following along.

best