Rape, (1/2)

[jporter]

rj

(snip)

>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,


Or as some other type of reality beyond the purview of science, something
between the subjective and objective, or even the usual ad hoc agreed upon
commerce between two beings capable of both relative subjectivity and
objectivity, and encountering eachother's pyschic turf for the first time,
and trying neither to fall into the uusual battle of wills regarding where
and how the line between them should be drawn, nor worrying about
self-parody.

>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'm agnostic w/r/t whether I'm a member of the class known as non-adepts. : )


>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

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.

>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.

That is definitely not what I said, or at least meant. The non-adept
becomes adept by definition, if a telepathic link develops, and it doesn't
develop without active participation of all involved. The link cannot be
controlled from either side (too many bad movie and book plots seem to be
clouding our vision here). Attempting control might be incompatible,
physiologically, with openning a "gate."

> 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.

"Adeptness" would be a shared state, not something that can be possessed by
an individual, to be used at will. You might., e.g., share adeptness with
me but not someone else, or vice versa. It would not seem to be a matter of
intellectual prowess, which could actually get in the way. It might be
pre-lingual, more a function of consciousness before lateral dominance
became the style. Dogs may be better suited for it than you or me. It could
be analogous to Slothrop chasing the demon who stole his clothes. He should
have climbed down the (evolutionary) tree- sideways even- instead of
assuming that the demon went up. It could be a lost skill.

>
>> 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.

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. : )

>> 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.

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.

>
>> 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...

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.

(continued)