Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!axiom!drilex!rclex!cdx39!jc
From: jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: net.bio,net.med,net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: PSI:  Yes I see it / No you don't
Message-ID: <208@cdx39.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-May-86 14:41:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: cdx39.208
Posted: Fri May 23 14:41:21 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 26-May-86 00:05:42 EDT
References: <8300@kestrel.ARPA>
Lines: 69
Xref: linus net.bio:363 net.med:3842 net.philosophy:5022 net.religion:9875

[I hope nobody minds my deleting most of those newsgroups:-]

> Evolution theory predicts that if it exists and is useful it would be
> the norm as those with the ability would outbreed those without.
> 
> Who can deny the utility of the ability to detect a stalking tiger at a
> distance?  To cloud a prey animal's thinking to prevent him from
> bolting?  To know what lies under concealment?  To perform telekinetic
> manipulation?

Hey, what's the argument here?  PSI/ESP/etc in exactly the 
sense it's usually used is quite common throughout the animal 
(and plant?:-) kingdom.  All sorts of critters from lowly
worms to fishes to platypussies to birds and mammals have
been documented as having sensory receptors for EM fields,
electrostatic and/or magnetic.  Others (honeybees, for example)
can see "outside the visual specrum" (typically near UV).

Whaddaya mean, that's not "Extra-Sensory Perception"?  Stand
up and define your terms, fella!  You have only two choices.
You can define the phrase as meaning not received by any of
the critter's senses. Or you can define it as meaning reception 
of signals that aren't part of the standard list of "five senses" 
of homo sapiens.

In the former case, case ESP is an oxymoron; if it was received, 
then it obviously was a sensory perception.  In the latter case,
ESP obviously exists; all it takes is a critter that has some
sense that humans lack, and that's easy.  

All most people mean by ESP/PSI is that it's done by means 
that they don't understand.

In fact, as usually understood, ESP is easily demonstrated in
humans.  The standard list of senses doesn't include measuring
accelerations (such as gravity).  There is an obvious survival
benefit to knowing which way is up, and all mammals (including
humans) have a sensory organ (the semicircular canals) that
measure acceleration.  Similarly, it is easy to demonstrate
that a normal human knows to great accuracy the relative
positions of all bodily parts, and that this knowledge does
not come from any of the standard five senses (or from the
semicircular canals).  Physiologists call this the "kinesthetic
sense".  Whence comes this knowledge?  From pressure-sensitive
nerve endings inside each of the joints.

I claim that I have the above ESP capabilities, and so do 
most other mammals.  Can you give me a definition of ESP 
or PSI that excludes them and doesn't also trivially exclude
all possible senses?

As for telekinetics, well, my brain can cause the motion of
several things at a significant distance; I call them my
hands, feet, ....  

If that doesn't satisfy you, I might also point out that
my brain can also cause the motion of lots of things that
are remote from my body.  Right now, my brain is controling
the paths of some electrons inside your terminal....

[This is fun, isn't it?]
-- 
	John M Chambers (617-364-2000x7304)

	      / cthulhu	 \	     /usenet
	     /  inmet	  \	    / news
	...!{   harvax	   }!cdx39!{  jc
	     \  mit-eddie /	    \ uucp
	      \ mot[bos] /	     \root