From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Theoretical Computer Science
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:57:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.101313.22839@sobeco.com>, ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.) writes in part:
|> In <Bz0K7u.HHF@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|> 
|> >|>In article <1992Dec7.215458.5907@sobeco.com>, ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.) writes in part:
|> >|> There's no evidence indicating that telepathy does not exist.  
|> >There is no evidence that telepathy exists.  There is plenty of
|> >evidence that many experiences that are claimed to show telepathy
|> >are in fact due to psychological processes other than telepathy.
|> 
|> What do you think telepathy is?  (this is the second time I've asked you this
|> question, BTW)
|> When it is telepathy, what should the results show?
You tell me.

|> >|> The only
|> >|> evidence you've brought so far was that some people will lie to make
|> >|> a buck.  
|> >???? What's this all about?  I never said anything remotely like this.
|> 
|> Robert, I've been reading you in this group and in sci.skeptic for over a year
|> now.  Don't pull the "I've never said" act on me.
|> The "... lie to make a buck" is, as you well know, a figure of speech.  How
|> about replacing "to make a buck" with "to feel self important", or ...
|> what was it you said about the guys who had claimed to have made the crop
|> circles?

What in the world do crop circles ahve to do with this discussion?
There are some "psychics" who are charlatans.  That has nothing at
all to do with a discussion of how telepathy MIGHT work.


|> >In fact, I've presented no evidence one way or another.
|> 
|> How true!  How about it?  Can you present evidence?
|> Besides, you wouldn't accept evidence if it came right up to you and offered
|> you a beer.
Evidence of WHAT?  The discussion here was what the theoretical
implications of telepathy might be.

If you want to discuss evidence of whether ESP DOES exist, then
you show me your evidence.  Or at least give me a clue as to what
it is you are asking me to show evidence for.

|> >|> I'm sure the theory of computations just threw a fit when precognition was
|> >|> first mentionned.  BTW, precognition, ESP and the likes are not synonyms for
|> >|> omnipotence.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Please enlighten me:  what do you think ESP really is?  What do you think
|> >|> precognition is?
|> >Noone knows what ESP is.  I personally think it is a cognitive illusion,
|> >an incorrect inference people sometimes draw from experience.  But
|> >what I have read of ESP indicates that it allows the flow of information
|> >unlimited by distance at infinite speed, and backwards and forwards in
|> >time.  This is pretty much "omniscience".
|> 
|> Well here's what ESP is (according to the meaning of the abreviation):
|> Extra Sensory Perception.
|> It's the general term used to described faculties where information is gathered
|> through other means than the 5 senses.  Omniscience implies current knowledge
|> of everything there is to know.  It's not easy to confuse the terms, but you
|> seem to have managed.
If information can be gathered in ways other that the known senses, then
it MAY be equivalent to omniscience.  Since you can't tell me how ESP
works, how can you tell me how it doesn't work.


|> 
|> >|> I'd sure like to know what you think ESP, telepathy and precognition are.
|> 
|> >You tell me.
|> 
|> You're asking ME to tell YOU what YOU think ESP et al. are?

No I want you to tell me what you think ESP etc. is.  If we can
reach a common definition then we might make progress on the
ORIGINAL topic, which was what the implications might be for the
theory of computation.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu