Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!homxb!jmil
From: jmil@homxb.UUCP (J.MILLER)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ESP as evolutionary disadvantage (was: none)
Message-ID: <2057@homxb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Oct-86 12:37:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: homxb.2057
Posted: Mon Oct 20 12:37:40 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Oct-86 06:45:30 EDT
References: <217@sri-arpa.ARPA> <3598@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 23

> Summary: if telepathy exists, its mechanism is related to that of thought.
> If its mechanism is related to that of thought, then its resource consumption
> is related to that of thought.  If the resource consumption of thought is
> low, then the resource consumption of telepathy is low.

This summary concludes an argument intended to defend the possibility
that "the production of overpowering psychic distraction requires little
more resources than does thought."

Why don't we look at the above summary as it applies to a KNOWN sense?

> Summary: if speech exists, its mechanism is related to that of hearing.
> If its mechanism is related to that of hearing, then its resource consumption
> is related to that of hearing.  If the resource consumption of hearing is
> low, then the resource consumption of speech is low.

Is this a plausible defense of the possibility that "the production of
overpowering sonic distraction requires little more resources than
does hearing" on a continuous basis?  Try it with sight or smell.

A little analogy goes a long way.

Joe Miller