[ExI] Sigh

David Lubkin lubkin at unreasonable.com
Fri Jul 29 14:38:07 UTC 2011


Will wrote:

>John, just curious--what all would you consider to be considered 
>"psi"?  It seems there's not a catchall--I thought to have it mean 
>"an action taken by the human brain that is currently unexplainable 
>by known physics," but a lot of things that seem very non-psi would 
>fall into that category.  A perhaps tighter definition would be "an 
>action taken by the human brain that violates known physics," but I 
>wouldn't quite put it there, either.
>
>The problem is, what psi really does symbolize is a large group of 
>fairly unrelated phenomena.  Most seem to be considered conscious, 
>mental abilities.  I'm sure we can both agree that the mind can do 
>some very wild stuff, and that there are a LOT of things out there 
>that we all could certainly believe the mind was capable of much as 
>we might believe a powerful computer was.
>
>What definition, exactly, do you reject?  It seems like your 
>argument is for the most part "Magic ain't real," but I doubt any of 
>us don't think that.  What do you think the human brain has, without 
>question, zero capability for?  This should clear a lot up.

This is an interesting question.

The answer might be parallel to AI -- a set S of capabilities is
considered to be AI at time t0. When, at time t1, a capability
(solving equations, playing chess...) is achieved, people declare
that that's not AI, and remove it from S.

Or to statements of the form "Only humans ___" as a way of
declaring that we are either superior to or inferior to other species.
Only humans invent new words. Only humans rape. As soon as
an example is found in another species, a new basis for declaring
us superior or inferior is switched to.

At first, I thought a definition of psi would require that the ability
existed without technological assist, but I think that's too limiting.

Take telepathy. I see three ways you might be able to read another
persons thoughts:

(a) classic telepathy -- through mutation or biological alteration,
a human acquires the ability

(b) technological equivalent -- A and B both have computer-brain
interfaces with read/write capabilities. A's thoughts are converted
to a data stream, which is transmitted to B. B's processor converts
A's thoughts into an audio feed. Or overlays B's visual image of
A with closed captions. Or, more ambitiously, writes A's thoughts
into B's short- or long-term memories.

(c) augmented nature -- humans now, or through *biological*
alteration, have an ability that could read human thought but isn't
powerful enough. Technological means amplify our senses,
making an inherent ability potent enough to be usable.

(a) is clearly psi. (b) is clearly not psi. (c) is debatable; I'd opt
for considering it psi, but there's logic in excluding it as well.


-- David.




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list