[ExI] Debate, EP and psi was important books

Keith Henson hkeithhenson at gmail.com
Tue Jun 29 15:27:45 UTC 2010

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:05 PM,  John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> And Keith I wish you'd post more, you are a ferocious debater, one of the absolute best, that's why I value what you write even when I disagree. Especially when I disagree actually.

Thanks.  It really isn't hard.  If you want to back up your arguments,
you have at your fingertips another window with a search engine.  If
you can frame a search, like the recent "few bits per second" thread
then you look smart.  Which is, if you are honest about it, the point
of posting at all.

I also post on the lifeboat list.  Was posting about my EP based model for war.


>> If you think this is just ranting BS, I should probably take it
>> elsewhere.
> I don't think it's "ranting BS" -- it's just not a great
> conversation-starter. Your points are not very controversial,

You are the first to say that.


So the EP concepts are gaining traction.  Along that line I recommend this:


"Given that we humans like to think of ourselves as special, this new
pyramid will surely encounter strong resistance. But it could also
become a shorthand way to clarify the often-misunderstood concepts of
evolutionary psychology, which, its advocates insist, are not as
meaning-denying and ego-deflating as we might think."

(Some of the material published as EP is just awful recycled sociology
bs.  You have to understand the subject enough to sort it out.)

Re psi, if there is some kind of psi ability existing and it depends
to some extent on a genetic trait and the ability improves
reproductive success just a little, then we would expect it to be as
common as eyesight and as well developed, even if it only provided a
slight reproductive edge.

We don't see that, so the people proposing the existence of psi
abilities have the interesting task of proposing a model in which
something keeps psi abilities down close to the noise range.  Such as:
 the ability to see into the future provides no reproductive

I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing out the logical
framework around the concept.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list