Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Fudbucker]

Don't need to define the odds. 1 in a million or 1 in a billion is still more than 0 in a million or 0 in a billion. In all cases the set where life evolves into advanced civilization is greater than the ESP set.

You are making the mistake of confusing possibility with probability. ESP may have a very small chance of being possible. Highly unlikely but we don't know everything. Advanced civilizations though are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. At least 1 exists, us.

So the probability of another advanced civilization evolving are always greater than the probability of discovering ESP. But here is the kicker. Given current knowledge. Probabilities will change as new information is added. Still for now, the probability of alien civilizations is greater. Find at least one case of ESP and then maybe we have a real discussion. Right now the discussion is going on and on about something already proven. 1 is always greater than 0. 1 divided by any positive number, no matter how large is also still greater than 0. Until you find at least 1 case of ESP, the probability of finding another alien civilization is always greater.

QED

The set of "alien life" is unknown. It could be 1 or 100 or billion or zero.

Comparison is prob of esp vs "alien life" not "life"

 

[Mudcat]

Jones, I have been out of body

I doubt that very much, but you should no doubt be able to prove it if so.

and have a far better understanding of our multiple dimensional existence than you have---

You should be able able to satisfactorily demonstrate this to everyone's satisfaction then.

which qm is slowly learning (science is very slow at learning what ancient mystics knew thousands of years ago....)

Science-fiction/fantasy clichéd twaddle.

The set of "alien life" is unknown. It could be 1 or 100 or billion or zero.

Comparison is prob of esp vs "alien life" not "life"

True, but even just by going by that goal it's demonstrably true that the probability of the existence alien life is greater than that of the existence of ESP. Thus invalidating the thread title, the thread's premise, and all of your arguments up until now.

As has been explained to you multiple times to you by people not stuck in fantasy land.

That is a lot of fail.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The set of "alien life" is unknown. It could be 1 or 100 or billion or zero.

Comparison is prob of esp vs "alien life" not "life"

"alien life" is not a set in this context. It is a subset. The set is "life".

Great hypothetical analogy. Suppose in an alternate universe 3 advanced civilizations evolved around the sun (none with ESP). In this hypothetical situation you could claim "alien" as meaning extra-solar. You could then claim there was no proven extra-solar advanced civilizations and the chances for alien life in that hypothetical alternate universe was the same as discovering ESP. Again your argument would be fallacious, because 3 is always greater than 0.

Probabilities always have 2 components, what is known and what is unknown. It is known that life can evolve and produce an advanced civilization. What isn't known is how often this occurs. There is no probability for ESP, only a remote possibility. The probability is 0 because no known case has ever been shown. Should a case ever be shown, then we can discuss probabilities.

QED

 

[Aridas]

I'm on a tablet so grammar will suffer

Thank you for the warning, though I have been trying to hold back when it comes to semantics.

1 I'll stipulate that there are a huge number of planets in zones that appear habitable however appear is key word.

Stipulate is the wrong word there, for the record. With that said, by trying this approach, at very best, you're completely missing the point of why I was talking about the chances of planets being in the Goldilocks Zone. As I already explained, it was an example of just one of the required underlying probabilities for advanced alien life... well, technically for advanced life as we know it, but that's a tangent that really won't be productive for any side to pursue. It was used as an example for one side of a comparison between two distinct kinds of required underlying probabilities for something to be the case.

Also, do I really have to point out such trivially obvious things like that just being in a place where something could be the case doesn't make it the case in a discussion with you, even after having explained in detail what the example was being used for when that was completely irrelevant to the point being made? I suppose I could, if you wanted me to treat you like an utter idiot. I'd really prefer not to do that, though.

Either way, maybe you could try again, given that you addressed exactly none of the points that I actually made in my post in your whole post.

 

[Fudbucker]

Thank you for the warning, though I have been trying to hold back when it comes to semantics.



Stipulate is the wrong word there, for the record. With that said, by trying this approach, at very best, you're completely missing the point of why I was talking about the chances of planets being in the Goldilocks Zone. As I already explained, it was an example of just one of the required underlying probabilities for advanced alien life... well, technically for advanced life as we know it, but that's a tangent that really won't be productive for any side to pursue. It was used as an example for one side of a comparison between two distinct kinds of required underlying probabilities for something to be the case.

Also, do I really have to point out such trivially obvious things like that just being in a place where something could be the case doesn't make it the case in a discussion with you, even after having explained in detail what the example was being used for when that was completely irrelevant to the point being made? I suppose I could, if you wanted me to treat you like an utter idiot. I'd really prefer not to do that, though.

Either way, maybe you could try again, given that you addressed exactly none of the points that I actually made in my post in your whole post.

I'm going to end the discussion because I feel I have proved my case and I'm sure you feel you have proved yours.

In light of it idiot comment I'll point out my background on this is demonstrably better than yours (on physical impossibility and the problem of change and identity across time (ship of These u s)) and that a nuanced understanding of conditional probability is necessary to understand my points. No one posting so far has shown much more than a passing knowledge of probability theory.

But it was a good discussion.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But it was a good discussion.

It would have been better if you could have understood the ramifications of Bayesian inference as it applies to your problem and how it is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as evidence is acquired.

You still seem to be balking at the idea that the civilised life already has one example, where ESP has none, automatically making alien life more probable than ESP. My first post you said,

That's the strongest argument against my claim that ESP and aliens are equally likely. I'll have to think about it.

That's putting it well. Gotta think about it.

I was sure you had it then! What happened?

 

[Aridas]

Fudbucker pinned that on himself by using it as I described.

Your claim is that, when taken in context -

Not ESP, but yes, it forces me to claim that the probability of alien life existing is equal to the probability of a god like Zeus coming down from some mountain to say hi to us. I can't say the probability of alien life is higher than a god appearing because there might not be any alien life at all. If that's the case, the god has a greater chance of appearing.

is him -

That may be, however, Fudbucker uses gods or a zeus-god as a claim for the unlikeliness of alien life.

doing what you claim. I disagree, rather strongly, given context. He's trying to claim that unknown probabilities must be regarded as equal, given notably fallacious logic, as he's repeatedly said, yes, and to defend his position he had to try to argue that the two unknown cases are equal. Remember, he also had to argue that the chances of, to use his version, a person meeting their parents was also equal to advanced alien life in the very same post. That's quite a bit different than using gods as a claim for the unlikeliness of alien life.

It may be that you intended it as such but as I said it's not a big problem.
If you so easily regard Fudbucker's atom re-arranger as a trick, then almost everything 'can' be regarded as anything one wishes.

Easily? Irrelevant. It fits there because it fits there. 1) Functionally, it's a trick. 2) Technically, what methods are being used to "rearrange" the atoms are not stated at all, which allows for the escape route of pointing out that tricks involving the two-headed coin gaining or losing atoms, such as ones that involve gaining or losing a layer of material, fit the description.

Not comprehensively as it sidesteps the lack of prior probability completely.

Prior probability is quite irrelevant when it comes to that, though. Prior probability is relevant when trying to figure out probabilities. What's in question are possibilities, though. In short, it's a different subject than whether ESP is more probable than advanced alien life and has no actual relevance to that question in the first place.

Evaluating a claim on it's own claimed merits, and testing the worth of such merits. When a claim is made, I'd like the claimant to be as specific as possible and support his/her claim with evidence/data.

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with that, much as allowing for the unexpected is fundamentally part of the philosophy underlying science. That's directly related to the simple truth that science doesn't prove anything with absolute certainty. It can certainly do so far beyond any reasonable doubt, of course.

If the claimant remains fuzzy, non-specific in it's claims and moves goal posts a lot, I'll happily point that out repeatedly and try to extract these specifics from the claimant.
Very often, claimants with irrational claims tend to avoid being specific and continue in their apparent need to express their non-specific fuzzy ideas in exactly the same manner.

I'm quite aware of such and fully agree that fallacious logic and claims should be called out... if they're actually fallacious in the first place.

Anyways, this exchange has it's origin in Fudbucker stating that a few others (including you) have pointed out that Slowvehicle was wrong.
Do you indeed feel that Slowvehicle was wrong?

I'm pretty sure I already addressed that line of posts a couple times and, as a note, Fudbucker wasn't actually addressing the argument in question there, yet again. Either way, given the complexity and vague points of the language in question and how each was using it, I'm quite fine with saying that both were right part of the time and wrong part of the time. To make it a more complete thought, though, a two-headed coin can land with tails up, but will no longer be a two-headed coin when it lands, in that case. Time is the main important point that's vague here and is very much affected by where the emphasis is placed and the context. If you're holding a two-headed coin with a trick prepared at the time, for example and haven't tossed it yet, saying something like "This two-headed coin could land on tails" isn't incorrect at all. It certainly may be unbelievable for listeners, but it certainly isn't false. Even without a trick prepared, though, it wouldn't really be wrong, just exceedingly certain not to happen, given the nature of the possibility being invoked. If whichever coin in question landed on tails, it would no longer be correct to describe it as two-headed coin at that point, certainly. When the emphasis is on "two-headed coin," the time is vague, but can be reasonably assumed to be talking about before it was no longer two-headed. When the focus is on "lands," the coin in question is then correctly described as a formerly two-headed coin, but not just two-headed.

It's a bit annoying, yes, and definitely better avoided if a person is actually interested in honest and productive discussion. Either way, Fudbucker's been throwing out a lot of irrelevant bait like this for people to get distracted with, whether intentionally or because of frequent critical failures in reading comprehension or self-checking his statements. Getting distracted with it removes focus from the failings in his logic, which isn't exactly an uncommon tactic for people with really shaky arguments.

 

[Aridas]

I'm going to end the discussion because I feel I have proved my case and I'm sure you feel you have proved yours.

So, in short, you're running away yet again without even addressing any of the actual points that I made, though I quite certainly addressed yours. Perhaps you could enlighten me about what you think you proved by completely failing to address the counterarguments to your arguments?

In light of it idiot comment I'll point out my background on this is demonstrably better than yours

The idiot comment? The one where, when taken at very worst, I'm telling you that I don't want to treat you like an idiot, so stop trying to use the argument of an idiot and had backed up my point with exactly why your argument was such?

Either way, citing yourself as an authority while consistently making fallacious arguments isn't all that convincing.

(on physical impossibility and the problem of change and identity across time (ship of These u s))

You demonstrated nothing of the sort. Sorry to burst your bubble there. Your usage was quite terrible in context when it came to physical impossibility, though the term can, in fact, be stretched sufficiently far from normal usage to be reasonably used that way by specifically defining it to mean such in the context, like in the case that you referenced. When it came to the Ship of Theseus, frankly, that entire related tangent was largely OT, and I refuse to discuss the matter in sufficient depth to address your objections in this thread as was made clear, on the grounds that it would be OT. Yes, I very much can defend my position. No, I'm not going to do it here.

Frankly, though, I'm not even close to convinced that your reading comprehension is sufficient that such a discussion would be worth engaging in with you, given your performance in this thread and several others. If someone else who has demonstrated that they can hold an honest conversation wants to have the discussion in question, I'd be willing to discuss it with them, though.

and that a nuanced understanding of conditional probability is necessary to understand my points. No one posting so far has shown much more than a passing knowledge of probability theory.

You haven't, certainly, given that you were completely unable to defend your arguments without invoking fallacious logic and were consistently unable to actually address the counterarguments.

But it was a good discussion.

Ehh, I'm not so sure that it was a good discussion. Still, if you actually are leaving, this time, I hope you have a wonderful day. Even if you aren't leaving, though, I hope you have a wonderful day.

 

[Daylightstar]

Anyways, this exchange has it's origin in Fudbucker stating that a few others (including you) have pointed out that Slowvehicle was wrong.
Do you indeed feel that Slowvehicle was wrong?

...
I'm pretty sure I already addressed that line of posts a couple times and, as a note, Fudbucker wasn't actually addressing the argument in question there, yet again. Either way, given the complexity and vague points of the language in question and how each was using it, I'm quite fine with saying that both were right part of the time and wrong part of the time. To make it a more complete thought, though, a two-headed coin can land with tails up, but will no longer be a two-headed coin when it lands, in that case. Time is the main important point that's vague here and is very much affected by where the emphasis is placed and the context. If you're holding a two-headed coin with a trick prepared at the time, for example and haven't tossed it yet, saying something like "This two-headed coin could land on tails" isn't incorrect at all. It certainly may be unbelievable for listeners, but it certainly isn't false. Even without a trick prepared, though, it wouldn't really be wrong, just exceedingly certain not to happen, given the nature of the possibility being invoked. If whichever coin in question landed on tails, it would no longer be correct to describe it as two-headed coin at that point, certainly. When the emphasis is on "two-headed coin," the time is vague, but can be reasonably assumed to be talking about before it was no longer two-headed. When the focus is on "lands," the coin in question is then correctly described as a formerly two-headed coin, but not just two-headed.

It's a bit annoying, yes, and definitely better avoided if a person is actually interested in honest and productive discussion. Either way, Fudbucker's been throwing out a lot of irrelevant bait like this for people to get distracted with, whether intentionally or because of frequent critical failures in reading comprehension or self-checking his statements. Getting distracted with it removes focus from the failings in his logic, which isn't exactly an uncommon tactic for people with really shaky arguments.

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Look at how many words you have to add around two-headed coin and a landing coin showing tails to make it 'fit'.
As with the other points, it's a pity that you refuse to be unambiguous, it's like you want to avoid being specific in any particular direction.

As far as my hilited question above is concerned, same thing. It's neither this nor that.

 

[Daylightstar]

So, in short, you're running away yet again without even addressing any of the actual points that I made, though I quite certainly addressed yours. ...

Perhaps in your discussion with him, this is to do (if only partly) with your two tailed approach.
You appear to argue for and against at the same time, never showing an unambiguous point of view.

It's similar to what Fudbucker does, only each of you serving their own interest.
Fudbucker having an irrational idea he wants to push and you wanting to be the all time true independently thinking True Skeptic who can never really state anything unambiguously.

 

[Aridas]

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Look at how many words you have to add around two-headed coin and a landing coin showing tails to make it 'fit'.
As with the other points, it's a pity that you refuse to be unambiguous, it's like you want to avoid being specific in any particular direction.

As far as my hilited question above is concerned, same thing. It's neither this nor that.

I'm sorry, are you really telling me that I have to quote every post in that rather OT tangent and go through them all to satisfy you? Except, like I observed before, you're still not actually evaluating the points on their own merits or even paying any attention to the context. This is just another example. All those words that I added were so that there was very little ambiguity about the justification for why I said what I did.

Either way, you were unambiguously demonstrated to be wrong on multiple points. Care to lead by example for Fudbucker and openly admit such? Or will you content yourself to remaining even with him in that regard?

 

[Daylightstar]

I'm going to end the discussion because I feel I have proved my case and I'm sure you feel you have proved yours.

In light of it idiot comment I'll point out my background on this is demonstrably better than yours (on physical impossibility and the problem of change and identity across time (ship of These u s)) and that a nuanced understanding of conditional probability is necessary to understand my points. No one posting so far has shown much more than a passing knowledge of probability theory.

But it was a good discussion.

Again?
I'm sorry Fudbucker, but your claim that your 'background is better' than anyone else's is most definitely not substantiated or demonstrated by you in this thread.
The term "demonstrably" is your own, very personal little rainbow, which disappears when looked at from an outside perspective.

 

[Aridas]

Perhaps in your discussion with him, this is to do (if only partly) with your two tailed approach.
You appear to argue for and against at the same time, never showing an unambiguous point of view.

It's similar to what Fudbucker does, only each of you serving their own interest.
Fudbucker having an irrational idea he wants to push and you wanting to be the all time true independently thinking True Skeptic who can never really state anything unambiguously.

If you really think that, you're just confirming, like you have repeatedly in the past, that I'm exactly right about you not judging arguments on their own merits. Sorry, I'm not interested in taking "sides," unlike you, except with regards to how valid arguments are. I argue in favor of valid arguments and against fallacious ones. It's as simple as that. That you're having such difficulty understanding that is not in your favor. As it is, I've stated most things in this thread fairly unambiguously. Any failures of comprehension are very much on you. Feel free, of course, to ask for further clarification, but I'd suggest that you start actually paying attention to what's actually being said.

 

[Daylightstar]

I'm sorry, are you really telling me that I have to quote every post in that rather OT tangent and go through them all to satisfy you? Except, like I observed before, you're still not actually evaluating the points on their own merits or even paying any attention to the context. This is just another example. All those words that I added were so that there was very little ambiguity about the justification for why I said what I did.

Either way, you were unambiguously demonstrated to be wrong on multiple points. Care to lead by example for Fudbucker and openly admit such? Or will you content yourself to remaining even with him in that regard?

Does you quoting posts make your posts less unambiguous? How?
You had to add a lot of words to one side of the two headed coin landing tails claim to make it 'possible'.
What people do to remain ambiguous

I don't think I have seen you being specific about your complaint about me being wrong on multiple occasions.
Please be specific and I'll see what I can do for you

 

[Daylightstar]

If you really think that, you're just confirming, like you have repeatedly in the past, that I'm exactly right about you not judging arguments on their own merits. Sorry, I'm not interested in taking "sides," unlike you, except with regards to how valid arguments are. I argue in favor of valid arguments and against fallacious ones. It's as simple as that. That you're having such difficulty understanding that is not in your favor. As it is, I've stated most things in this thread fairly unambiguously. Any failures of comprehension are very much on you. Feel free, of course, to ask for further clarification, but I'd suggest that you start actually paying attention to what's actually being said.

No need to take sides, just being clear and unambiguous is the least you could do.
A person can read your posts and effectively choose which argument you really are making and it'll seem rather convincing to them.
You unambiguously apply a two-tailed approach.

 

[Daylightstar]

Oh, by the way friend, I'm not saying you're not allowed to have a two-tailed approach, it's entirely up to you of course.
I'm just saying it's better to be less ambiguous.

 

[Aridas]

Does you quoting posts make your posts less unambiguous? How?

Seriously? This is what you've got? Quoting the posts would make the positions of the two rather obvious, but frankly, since you've been in the thread throughout the discussion, I would hope that you understood their positions by now, given that they were stated so very many times.

Ahh, well. It's true that I was foolish to think that you would actually pay attention to such minor details as understanding what the subject under discussion is and what the people involved actually said, though.

You had to add a lot of words to one side of the two headed coin landing tails claim to make it 'possible'.

No. Those words describe why it is so. They don't make it so. If you think you see a problem with the actual argument, demonstrate what it is. If not, stop wasting our time embarrassing yourself.

I don't think I have seen you being specific about your complaint about me being wrong on multiple occasions.
Please be specific and I'll see what I can do for you

My statement was that you were demonstrated to be wrong, unambiguously. Let's take a couple examples from Post 687, then. Your claim that Fudbucker was specifically trying to use a comparison to the likelihood of gods as a way to make alien life seem more unlikely. This argument only holds any weight at all when you completely and utterly ignore the context. Your argument about the "atom rearranger" was also dealt with, again. Your argument that prior probability is relevant when the subject being dealt with is only whether something even could potentially be possible is completely wrong, as well.

 

[Aridas]

No need to take sides, just being clear and unambiguous is the least you could do.
A person can read your posts and effectively choose which argument you really are making and it'll seem rather convincing to them.
You unambiguously apply a two-tailed approach.

If we have an object that is partially red and partially blue, and there's an argument between two people about whether it's red or blue, are either right, wrong, or partially right and partially wrong? Is pointing out that both are partially right and partially wrong and explaining why that is the case in any way ambiguous or unclear?

 

[Daylightstar]

If we have an object that is partially red and partially blue, and there's an argument between two people about whether it's red or blue, are either right, wrong, or partially right and partially wrong? Is pointing out that both are partially right and partially wrong and explaining why that is the case in any way ambiguous or unclear?

That's not a good comparison.
Both persons would be wrong.
Both colors on the object and the incorrectness of the object being only one color can be readily observed by either party, no tricks or magic required.

The claim for a two-headed coin landing tails requires tricks or magic.

See? Not the same.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
My statement was that you were demonstrated to be wrong, unambiguously. Let's take a couple examples from Post 687, then. Your claim that Fudbucker was specifically trying to use a comparison to the likelihood of gods as a way to make alien life seem more unlikely. This argument only holds any weight at all when you completely and utterly ignore the context. Your argument about the "atom rearranger" was also dealt with, again. Your argument that prior probability is relevant when the subject being dealt with is only whether something even could potentially be possible is completely wrong, as well.

This, I'l get back to later, promise