>>13797872i'll try to elaborate a bit.
it seemed to me that you were describing a hypothetical future (telepathy for example) from a starting point where that said telepathy was not widely common in the past or the present.
such a telepathy would of course not be telepathy, but something similar to telepathy on crutches.
if you'd started from a point where telepathy or other nowadays-seen-as-godlike-abilities were just a normal thing, that would roughly be the same starting point of the so-called "fall".
