🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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