[ExI] Debate, EP and psi was important books

John Grigg 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
advantage.

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
this phenomena).

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
> 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:
>
> http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/maslows-pyramid-gets-a-makeover-17782/?utm_source=Newsletter115&utm_medium=email&utm_content=0629&utm_campaign=newsletters
>
> "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
> advantage.
>
> I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing out the logical
> framework around the concept.
>
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list