[ExI] Debate, EP and psi was important books
possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 30 04:25:40 UTC 2010
Keith Henson wrote:
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.
Perhaps the forces of evolution have only *gotten started (relatively
speaking)* in developing human psi powers. You may need to wait
another 100,000 years to see some amazing results... Oh, wait,
science and technology to the rescue (play cavalry charge music)!! I
bet that within a century or less, our mastery of genetic engineering
could greatly speed that process up (if our genetics are the key to
John : )
On 6/29/10, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>> If you think this is just ranting BS, I should probably take it
>> 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.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat