Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Aridas]

That's not a good comparison.
Both persons would be wrong.

Their overall argument would be. That doesn't mean that the specific arguments that were made are necessarily wrong, though, in and of themselves, just that what the overall thing they're trying to argue for is. Pointing to a place that's red and calling it red isn't wrong, after all. Partially right and partially wrong refers to such situations where some of what each side is saying is, indeed, true, though neither is completely so. Some of the arguments, of course, will obviously also be wrong, but that should go without needing said.

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.

It was created as an obvious analogy to illustrate the concept in question. Do you have a problem with such examples being used? Either way, all of that bit of the quoted is irrelevant to the point.

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

See? Not the same.

Still irrelevant to the points being made. The concept illustrated is equally applicable to more complex situations, regardless.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

...right,

If you walk away and decalre yourself the "winnwer", you do not have to address your dishonest equivocations and your dependence upon quibbles and inconsistencies that you hoped nobody would notice, ot call you on.

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.

...right.

As long as you continue to pretend that there is a non-zreo probability of finding an ace of spades in a deck where "...there is no ace of spades..." it is ludicrous, at best, and certainly looks dishonest) of you to pretend that you understand "impossibility" at all; much less "demonstrably better" than anyone.

Nor does this address your blythe conflation of "is" and "was"; your blythe equivocation between "one" (and, honestly, not even "one") and "several"; nor your obdurate insistence that life on this planet has no predictive value in re life in the universe.

...to say nothing of your implication that there is a proper time to "use" fallacies...

 

[Slowvehicle]

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?

I wonder if you see the flaw in your analogy.

It is, in fact, physically possible for an object to be "partially red and partially blue"--and, of course, reasonable people could disagree about how much blue could be included before it would not make sense to refer to the object as a "red object".

However:

There is a fundamental difference between "an object in which there is no blue" and a "red-object-with-an-undefined-amount-of blue" (an object that is "partially red and partially blue").

It is the same fundamental difference between "a deck with no ace of spades in it" and "a deck with an ace of spades in it" (or a "deck-in-which-there-is-a-non-zero-probability-of-finding-an-ace-of-spades")

It is the same difference between "a two-headed coin" ( a coin-with-no-"tails") and a coin with part of a "tails" on one of its faces.

Note further that in a deck of cards with part of an ace of spades, it is not true that there is a non-zero probability of finding an ace of spades; there is a non-zero probability of finding part of an ace of spades.

Given a coin with part of a "tails" on one face, it is not true that there is a non-zero probability of the coin landing "tails"; there is a non-zero probability of the coin landing, showing part of a "tails".

 

[Aridas]

I wonder if you see the flaw in your analogy.

Feel free to point it out, of course.

It is, in fact, physically possible for an object to be "partially red and partially blue"--and, of course, reasonable people could disagree about how much blue could be included before it would not make sense to refer to the object as a "red object".

Of course. The analogy was made as simple as it was to illustrate the concept of "partially right and partially wrong," though, given Daylightstar's remarkable difficulty in understanding the concept. Do you disagree that it works just fine for this purpose?

However:

There is a fundamental difference between "an object in which there is no blue" and a "red-object-with-an-undefined-amount-of blue" (an object that is "partially red and partially blue").

It is the same fundamental difference between "a deck with no ace of spades in it" and "a deck with an ace of spades in it" (or a "deck-in-which-there-is-a-non-zero-probability-of-finding-an-ace-of-spades")

It is the same difference between "a two-headed coin" ( a coin-with-no-"tails") and a coin with part of a "tails" on one of its faces.

Note further that in a deck of cards with part of an ace of spades, it is not true that there is a non-zero probability of finding an ace of spades; there is a non-zero probability of finding part of an ace of spades.

Given a coin with part of a "tails" on one face, it is not true that there is a non-zero probability of the coin landing "tails"; there is a non-zero probability of the coin landing, showing part of a "tails".

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making with the analogy in question, which I've already specifically stated in this post, therefore, what you claim to be a flaw is not such. If you want to discuss these concepts, I request that you go back to where I actually discussed those concepts in post 687 and go from there.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Feel free to point it out, of course.

Of course. The analogy was made as simple as it was to illustrate the concept of "partially right and partially wrong," though, given Daylightstar's remarkable difficulty in understanding the concept. Do you disagree that it works just fine for this purpose?

All of this is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making with the analogy in question, which I've already specifically stated in this post, therefore, what you claim to be a flaw is not such. If you want to discuss these concepts, I request that you go back to where I actually discussed those concepts and go from there.

If all you were trying to do is score points in your OT slapfest with Daylightstar, fine.

If you were trying to support Fud's inapt (and inept) claim that there is a non-zero probability of finding an ace in a deck of cards in which there is no ace, not so much.

If you were trying to support Fud's inapt (and inept) claim that it is possible for a two-headed coin to land showing "tails", not so much.

Fud has tried to both eat his cake and have it, too; that is, to claim that there may be an ace of spades in a deck he, himself, defined as a "deck with no ace of spades in it" (or to claim that there may be a "tails" on a "two-headed coin"). It is not that such a careless, if not outright dishonest, construction obviates everything (or anything) else Fud has said; rather, Fud's confusion between statistics (on the one hand) and rules-lawyering (on the other) exposes his attempts to claim that the probability of a situation of which we have at least one exemplar, and the probability of a situation of which we have no exemplars, are the same probability, as grounded on no correct understanding of semantics, to say nothing of probability.

Your "partially red object" was another good way to point out the flaw in Fud's reasoning; if you were using it to make some other point, I do apologize.

 

[Aridas]

If all you were trying to do is score points in your OT slapfest with Daylightstar, fine.

Score points? No. Explain a concept that he's having remarkable difficulty with in a way that he will hopefully understand, yes.

If you were trying to support Fud's inapt (and inept) claim that there is a non-zero probability of finding an ace in a deck of cards in which there is no ace, not so much.

If you were trying to support Fud's inapt (and inept) claim that it is possible for a two-headed coin to land showing "tails", not so much.

Fud has tried to both eat his cake and have it, too; that is, to claim that there may be an ace of spades in a deck he, himself, defined as a "deck with no ace of spades in it" (or to claim that there may be a "tails" on a "two-headed coin"). It is not that such a careless, if not outright dishonest, construction obviates everything (or anything) else Fud has said; rather, Fud's confusion between statistics (on the one hand) and rules-lawyering (on the other) exposes his attempts to claim that the probability of a situation of which we have at least one exemplar, and the probability of a situation of which we have no exemplars, are the same probability, as grounded on no correct understanding of semantics, to say nothing of probability.

Fud has made many errors, yes. Not everything that he's said is completely in error, though. Either way, I'll again refer you back to what I said in post 687 on the topic before discussing these topics further, other than saying that your points are mostly correct, as far as they go.

Your "partially red object" was another good way to point out the flaw in Fud's reasoning; if you were using it to make some other point, I do apologize.

I was using it for a different purpose, yes, as noted. Thank you for the apology and an example by which certain other posters could learn a bit from.

 

[Daylightstar]

Aridas, just a quick question first:

In your post 687 you referred to in post 697, you have the following linked quote:

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

The text in that quote does not appear in the post the link button links to (652).
That text is in another post, 649 to be precise.
In an earlier post (650) by you, you quoted the same text with the link button linking to the correct post.


What is the reason for you making a linked quote with text from an entirely different post?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
No. Those words describe why it is so. They don't make it so. ...

No, those words describe how you think it can be made possible in a non-reality based way.

...
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. ...

No, I made no such comparison. Fudbucker equated the existence of alien life with the appearance of gods, indicating how non existent the chances for alien life are, according to him.
He even constructs a provisional caveat that the chances for the appearance of a god is higher than the existence of alien life.

...
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.
...

As I said and the posts show, Fudbucker used gods or a zeus-god as a claim for the unlikeliness of alien life, even elevated the chances for the appearance of such gods.

... 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.

There is no reason whatsoever that the suggested atom re-arranger could be possible. It's seeking refuge in fantasy.


So, unfortunately, Aridas, you have not demonstrated unambiguously that I was wrong on those accounts.
Not even close.

 

[Daylightstar]

Their overall argument would be. That doesn't mean that the specific arguments that were made are necessarily wrong, though, in and of themselves, just that what the overall thing they're trying to argue for is. Pointing to a place that's red and calling it red isn't wrong, after all. Partially right and partially wrong refers to such situations where some of what each side is saying is, indeed, true, though neither is completely so. Some of the arguments, of course, will obviously also be wrong, but that should go without needing said.
...

If their statement of color of "it" refers to a uniform color of the object, than yes, they are wrong.
If their statement of color of "it" refers to a only a specific spot on the object, then they might be right.
But you made no such distinction.
You couple "Object" and "It", followed later by obfuscation with lots of obscure non-precise balderdash.

Your object with colors example remains an extremely poor example. The only thing it has in common with for which you claim it is an example, is obfuscation and fuzzy talk.

...
It was created as an obvious analogy to illustrate the concept in question. Do you have a problem with such examples being used? Either way, all of that bit of the quoted is irrelevant to the point.
...

It was obviously intended as such an example. Just an extremely poor example riddled with fuzzy thinking.

...
Still irrelevant to the points being made. The concept illustrated is equally applicable to more complex situations, regardless.

It's magic versus reality.
Fudbucker's two headed coin landing tails requires magic, the color claims for the two colored object does not require magic.

So, your colored object remains a very bad comparison.

 

[Daylightstar]

Score points? No. Explain a concept that he's having remarkable difficulty with in a way that he will hopefully understand, yes.
...

You're padding a fuzzy non-specific idea with another fuzzy, non-specific idea.
Through use of words you (not unlike Fudbucker) think you can make anything possible by declaring something to be so, unhindered by reality.
The tiniest amount of scrutiny generates new fuzz from your side.

 

[jaydeehess]

Items that bolster the probability of advanced life (as we know it, leaving that as the criteria) in the universe:
- It has developed on at least one planet
- There is definite evidence of other planets around other stars that are both Earth sized and in zones where liquid water is possible.
- There are an estimated 200,000 such planets in our galaxy alone.

All of the above are supported by scientific argument.

Items that bolster the probability of ESP existing:
- Anecdotal reports.

This is unsupported scientifically.( recent experiments in managing to induce thoughts in one person while being generated in another, reported in the latest SciAm Mind, don't even apply)


While an exact probability cannot be made for either, it can be seen that their probabilities are not equal.

In mathematics there is the concept of infinity. The number of whole numbers is infinite. The number of even numbers is infinite. However the infinity that is the former is larger, in this case twice as large, than is the later. In both cases a total number is unapplicable but one is greater.

 

[Dinwar]

I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm quite at a loss to see how this is even a question. Intelligent alien life is inherently possible--intelligent terrestrial life is self-evident, proving that intelligent life on a planet violates no laws of physics, chemistry, biology, evolution, or any other laws. We can argue about the probability, but even a one-in-a-trillion event happens millions of times in the visible universe. In contrast, ESP violates pretty much everything we know about how the brain works, how physics works, and how organisms--including us--interact with their environments.

One is plausible, though of unknown probability. The other is implausible, and therefore has no chance of occurring. (For the record, I'm assuming we're talking organic ESP as understood by the general use of the term--intelligent robots communicating over WiFi don't count!)

When one is plausible, and the other isn't, the plausible one by definition is more likely.

 

[jsfisher]

In mathematics there is the concept of infinity. The number of whole numbers is infinite. The number of even numbers is infinite. However the infinity that is the former is larger, in this case twice as large, than is the later. In both cases a total number is unapplicable but one is greater.

Ummm, no. The "size" of the set of even numbers is exactly the same as the set of whole numbers. The set of reals, on the other hand, is larger.
[/pedant]

 

[jaydeehess]

Ummm, no. The "size" of the set of even numbers is exactly the same as the set of whole numbers. The set of reals, on the other hand, is larger.
[/pedant]

That must be what my university algebra teacher said, oh about 38 years ago.

 

[Daylightstar]

I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm quite at a loss to see how this is even a question. Intelligent alien life is inherently possible--intelligent terrestrial life is self-evident, proving that intelligent life on a planet violates no laws of physics, chemistry, biology, evolution, or any other laws. We can argue about the probability, but even a one-in-a-trillion event happens millions of times in the visible universe. In contrast, ESP violates pretty much everything we know about how the brain works, how physics works, and how organisms--including us--interact with their environments.

One is plausible, though of unknown probability. The other is implausible, and therefore has no chance of occurring. (For the record, I'm assuming we're talking organic ESP as understood by the general use of the term--intelligent robots communicating over WiFi don't count!)

When one is plausible, and the other isn't, the plausible one by definition is more likely.

Fudbucker sees alien life (other than life on Earth) as an entity entirely distinct from the existence of life on Earth in his consideration concerning the odds for such alien (other than life on Earth) life existing.
He tries to emphasize this distinction between entities by referring to life outside Earth as 'advanced alien life'.

We might as well arbitrarily introduce another distinction, advanced alien life which can create wormholes, or advanced alien life with three legs, or advanced alien life which catches advanced alien flies with their tongue.

What are the odds?

 

[jsfisher]

That must be what my university algebra teacher said, oh about 38 years ago.

What you said is a very common misunderstanding. Infinities are tricky things. The way to tell if two sets are the same size is match up elements from one with elements of the other. If there is a way to match up all of them from both sets, they are the same size.

For the sets of integers and of evens, you can pair n with 2n for a complete match-up. So, the two sets are equi-numerous.

As it turns out, there is no way to match the integers to the reals. The set of reals is larger.
[/derail]

 

[Aridas]

Aridas, just a quick question first:

In your post 687 you referred to in post 697, you have the following linked quote:


The text in that quote does not appear in the post the link button links to (652).
That text is in another post, 649 to be precise.
In an earlier post (650) by you, you quoted the same text with the link button linking to the correct post.


What is the reason for you making a linked quote with text from an entirely different post?

What is your actual issue? I was clarifying what was said at the only place the "Zeus-like god" bit appeared, and what you were claiming that it was used for. My apologies if I made an error in the quote syntax as I strove to keep things clear and coherent for the post in question.

No, those words describe how you think it can be made possible in a non-reality based way.

Seriously? Well, you obviously don't have a valid argument since you've made it quite clear that you have no idea whatsoever about what you're talking about. Maybe try paying attention to what was actually said in context, for once. I know you have issues with paying attention to context that's provided even within the same sentence, but are you even paying any attention to what was said at all in this case?

No, I made no such comparison. Fudbucker equated the existence of alien life with the appearance of gods, indicating how non existent the chances for alien life are, according to him.
He even constructs a provisional caveat that the chances for the appearance of a god is higher than the existence of alien life.

As I said and the posts show, Fudbucker used gods or a zeus-god as a claim for the unlikeliness of alien life, even elevated the chances for the appearance of such gods.

You're utterly ignoring context. How do you justify that claim in light of him also claiming that the chances of alien life are equal to the chance that a person will meet their parents?

There is no reason whatsoever that the suggested atom re-arranger could be possible. It's seeking refuge in fantasy.

So, you're dodging the points and refuse to actually address them in a relevant way. Gotcha.

So, unfortunately, Aridas, you have not demonstrated unambiguously that I was wrong on those accounts.
Not even close.

Each of your objections fail, horribly. Try again.

 

[jaydeehess]

Fudbucker sees alien life (other than life on Earth) as an entity entirely distinct from the existence of life on Earth in his consideration concerning the odds for such alien (other than life on Earth) life existing.
He tries to emphasize this distinction between entities by referring to life outside Earth as 'advanced alien life'.

We might as well arbitrarily introduce another distinction, advanced alien life which can create wormholes, or advanced alien life with three legs, or advanced alien life which catches advanced alien flies with their tongue.

What are the odds?

,,, IMO, or , if life is discovered on say Europa, he could exclude it as being relevant since its non-advanced, and if intelligent life were found there, exclude it as being non-advanced (despite it took our species 10,000 years of the sentience we had had for millennia, to become advanced to the level we are at now), or simply exclude any life found within our solar system.

I reject excluding the known example of advanced life, as being relevant to the question of the incidence of advanced life in the universe.

 

[Aridas]

If their statement of color of "it" refers to a uniform color of the object, than yes, they are wrong.
If their statement of color of "it" refers to a only a specific spot on the object, then they might be right.
But you made no such distinction.

Of course not. The relevant arguments of each side, both true and false, that must inherently be part of the example should have been very simple and obvious. Do you really need them spelled out?

You couple "Object" and "It", followed later by obfuscation with lots of obscure non-precise balderdash.

What, exactly, do you think is obscure, non-precise balderdash?

It's magic versus reality.
Fudbucker's two headed coin landing tails requires magic, the color claims for the two colored object does not require magic.

So, your colored object remains a very bad comparison.

The analogy has nothing to do with what Fudbucker actually said. Go back and address the actual points made for once, if you want to discuss that. As has been explained repeatedly, the sole point of the analogy was to illustrate the concept of "partially right and partially wrong," given that you were and are seeming to be having immense difficulty with it.

 

[Daylightstar]

... My apologies if I made an error in the quote syntax as I strove to keep things clear and coherent for the post in question.
...

Quote syntax? That sounds very expensive, however, it concerned the removal of original text replaced with text from another post.
I'll tell you openly that I considered that you were experimenting to see if such would be noticed. Although being really confused while constructing a response and mixing up stuff was clearly an option as well, I felt the latter to have approximately the same odds as a god or Zeus coming down to greet us, but have no certainty about that and I'll accept your implied explanation of having made a mistake.
So in that spirit I'll accept your apologies

... said in context, ... paying attention to context ...
You're utterly ignoring context. ...

Context, in this context, is that big, big fuzzy cloud of words in which everything is possible and everything can be made to fit.
You're quoting me, but I'm not entirely certain that you have read what I wrote, ignore it or reject it.