Rape, (2/2)

[jporter]

rj:

>(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.

I, on the other hand, have very deliberately been all inclusive.

>> 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.

Back to the Test? Why would either human want to fool the other? They are
supposed to be in league to debunk the machine. They are bound by the rules
not to try and fool eachother.

>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?

Again, my "model" (and, admittedly, it is evolving as I thrash this out
with you) would be that "adeptness" is not something that can be possessed-
but coming into existence only as a shared phenonmenon.  What would be an
individual trait, would be the willingness to drop the defensiveness and be
openminded about the possibility of such a mutually uncontrolled link. A
person with that disposition should be on the lookout for those who might
want to prey on what they assume to be gullibility. Such predators might
try to dupe another into believing that a channel existed, when it really
didn't. So the Turing test can be envisioned as being played one level up-
between three known humans, two of which are claiming "adeptness"

>> 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.

Randomness, as any good code breaker knows, is damn hard to fake. But
attempting to be random is the anti-thesis of attempting to create a
telepathic link. Your arguments seem more involved with active concealment-
code making and breaking- rather than in telepathy. E.S.P. is "so hard to
see" because it is a process that requires an active coming together, and
would require much self-discipline. The "Mojo Filter," however, would seem
to be automatically protective of any link once established. It would be a
self-protecting process because it would require an active attempt to avoid
defending a boundary- any link immediately collapsing when the will to do
so kicks in- hence the discipline and practice. It does not rule out dupes,
but they would be victims of their own gullibility, not E.S.P.  Controlling
ones fear of gullibility while not allowing oneself to be duped, would one
of the biggest hurdles in developing a telepathic link. The duping would
not be through telepathy, but via the good old fashioned kind of
human-human interaction.

Of course, if the other person is "good looking" the Prarie syndrome might
kick in: Dupe me, please...


jody