Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Daylightstar]

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?
...

If you would be so kind, yes, please do.

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

The part where you invalidly defend your invalid colored object 'analogy', but I already said such.

...
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.

I have explained to you in clear terms why there was no partially correct and partially wrong in your colored object 'analogy'. I have also explained to you in which case both persons could be right, but that was not part of your analogy, as you have confirmed in your post I am replying to here.
You asked me a question about your 'analogy' and I gave you a detailed answer.

Perhaps you should read it.

 

[Fudbucker]

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?



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.



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.



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.



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.

I posted a more speculative thread in the Religion Forum. I had a pretty good idea my mind wouldn't be changed on this thread (sorry, Baron, in the end I didn't end up agreeing with you, but it was a good point). I have no idea where the thread I just put in R&P will go.

 

[Daylightstar]

... I had a pretty good idea my mind wouldn't be changed on this thread ...

You've already made statements to this effect. After all:

...
Geniuses are never appreciated in their own time.

 

[Aridas]

Quote syntax? That sounds very expensive, however, it concerned the removal of original text replaced with text from another post.

One more example of you failing to understand English and simply being wrong on top of that.

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.

Rather, context, that necessary thing for accurate communication. That you try to denigrate it is funny and very much in character, but still sad. Is there some reason that you endorse and have used fallacious arguments like quoting out of context, both directly and in concept?

If you would be so kind, yes, please do.

Person 1, Argument 1 - The person argues that a red area is red.
Person 1, Argument 2 - The person argues that, because the identified area is red, the object is red and cannot be any other color.
Person 2, Argument 1 - The person argues that a blue area is blue.
Person 2, Argument 2 - The person argues that, because the identified area is blue, the object is blue and cannot be any other color.

Both of the first arguments are right. Both of the second arguments are wrong, which makes it a case that can reasonably be called partially true and partially false. It is certainly not wrong to acknowledge that a correct statement or argument is, in fact, correct, even if not all the claims made by the person in question are correct. It is also not wrong to point out that an incorrect statement is incorrect and point out why. It is, however, wrong to claim that a correct statement is false in a sweeping generalization or that an incorrect statement is correct in a sweeping generalization.

The part where you invalidly defend your invalid colored object 'analogy', but I already said such.

You've said it, but completely failed to back up your claim with a valid reason about how. I'm not impressed at all.

I have explained to you in clear terms why there was no partially correct and partially wrong in your colored object 'analogy'. I have also explained to you in which case both persons could be right, but that was not part of your analogy, as you have confirmed in your post I am replying to here.
You asked me a question about your 'analogy' and I gave you a detailed answer.

You've tried. Freely ignoring important details tends to lead to rather fallacious arguments, though, like you seem intent upon doing and making.



Either way, do you have a response yet for how you justify your claims about what Fudbucker was saying about gods and alien life when Fudbucker also argued that the probability of alien life must also be considered equal to a person meeting their parents in the very same post?


As for prior probability and possibilities, I'd like to have you clarify your argument. Going by what you've actually said, you're arguing that if the prior probability is 0, namely, that it hasn't happened before, the probability of it happening is 0. In other words, it's impossible. If that is, in fact, your argument, I retract my claim that it's irrelevant. Rather, it would likely be the dumbest piece of woo that I've heard all year, given that it's disproved by every "first" ever, no matter how general or specific and contradicts so very, very many scientific findings, before touching everything else that's wrong with it. If, instead, though, you were simply arguing in a completely incorrect manner for something more along the lines of the simple fact that something with prior probability and something with no prior probability can be regarded differently with regards to relative probability, such is, in fact, irrelevant and a complete straw man, given that I have repeatedly stated that such is the case, contrary to Fudbucker's claims. You really don't have any valid argument even possible with your arguments there, quite frankly.

 

[Daylightstar]

A response to some other items in your post will follow a bit later, sorry, bit busy.

... simply being wrong on top of that.
...

However, the data which I supplied in this post does not agree with you

 

[Dinwar]

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?

That was my impression from the OP: there are a bunch of post-hoc additions to the concept "alien life" designed specifically to generate an impossible standard, which can then be dismissed. For example, the whole nonsense about automated probes.

I had a pretty good idea my mind wouldn't be changed on this thread

Well, when you start by ignoring data, and intentionally set up impossible standards, this is hardly surprising.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Person 1, Argument 1 - The person argues that a red area is red.
Person 1, Argument 2 - The person argues that, because the identified area is red, the object is red and cannot be any other color.
Person 2, Argument 1 - The person argues that a blue area is blue.
Person 2, Argument 2 - The person argues that, because the identified area is blue, the object is blue and cannot be any other color.

Both of the first arguments are right. Both of the second arguments are wrong, which makes it a case that can reasonably be called partially true and partially false. It is certainly not wrong to acknowledge that a correct statement or argument is, in fact, correct, even if not all the claims made by the person in question are correct. It is also not wrong to point out that an incorrect statement is incorrect and point out why. It is, however, wrong to claim that a correct statement is false in a sweeping generalization or that an incorrect statement is correct in a sweeping generalization.
...

Is the colored area they each observed all they can see of the object? If so, why would they refer to an area of the object having a particular color and then state that the unobserved area of the object is and must be that particular color, without any apparent reason to do so?

Both of these persons would be committing a rather irrational non sequitur.

Although they may each be right with respect to the color they see on the object, this is utterly meaningless in your example as it needs to be evaluated in the context of their second statement.
Each being right with their first statement has no bearing on the validity of their composite claim.

...
Either way, do you have a response yet for how you justify your claims about what Fudbucker was saying about gods and alien life when Fudbucker also argued that the probability of alien life must also be considered equal to a person meeting their parents in the very same post?
...

Sure, Fudbucker equates the probabilities of two different events while their prior probabilities are unequal.

...

As for prior probability and possibilities, I'd like to have you clarify your argument. Going by what you've actually said, you're arguing that if the prior probability is 0, namely, that it hasn't happened before, the probability of it happening is 0. In other words, it's impossible. If that is, in fact, your argument, I retract my claim that it's irrelevant. Rather, it would likely be the dumbest piece of woo that I've heard all year, given that it's disproved by every "first" ever, no matter how general or specific and contradicts so very, very many scientific findings, before touching everything else that's wrong with it. If, instead, though, you were simply arguing in a completely incorrect manner for something more along the lines of the simple fact that something with prior probability and something with no prior probability can be regarded differently with regards to relative probability, such is, in fact, irrelevant and a complete straw man, given that I have repeatedly stated that such is the case, contrary to Fudbucker's claims. You really don't have any valid argument even possible with your arguments there, quite frankly.

My position here is that there is prior probability for the existence of life in the universe, right here on Earth. It therefore might exist elsewhere.
It may not, but at least, life in the universe has been observed to exist, there is prior probability.

ESP on the other hand has never been demonstrated to exist, When attempting to gauge the probability for ESP, one has to consider the lack of prior probability.
Although each may or may not exist, the probabilities are different.

Probability statements are not statements of fact, although they can show the chances for an event to take place ..... if based on correct data, obviously.

 

[Daylightstar]

That was my impression from the OP: there are a bunch of post-hoc additions to the concept "alien life" designed specifically to generate an impossible standard, which can then be dismissed. For example, the whole nonsense about automated probes.
...

Well said

 

[Aridas]

However, the data which I supplied in this post does not agree with you

The short version of what actually happened was that I was mistaken about what a particular part of the syntax actually did and sloppy as a result. This was, in fact, not done how you tried to claim it was, hence the "wrong." It's a mistake that's highly unlikely to be repeated, now that my understanding has been corrected. It can be amazing what happens when one actually accepts the evidence for what it is. Either way, that entire tangent was nothing more than an empty attempt to distract from how poor your actual arguments have been.

Is the colored area they each observed all they can see of the object? If so, why would they refer to an area of the object having a particular color and then state that the unobserved area of the object is and must be that particular color, without any apparent reason to do so?

Both of these persons would be committing a rather irrational non sequitur.

As you may or may not have noticed, a lot of people have tendencies to employ logic and arguments that are not entirely rational.

Although they may each be right with respect to the color they see on the object,

Hence the "partially right."

this is utterly meaningless in your example as it needs to be evaluated in the context of their second statement.

Oh? Now you're actually trying to cite context after fighting it so much? You base this version of "needs" on what, by the way? Is it similar to the saying "throw the baby out with the bathwater?"

Each being right with their first statement has no bearing on the validity of their composite claim.

Hence the "partially wrong." Either way, I've explained what I meant far more than enough, at this point, not least because, like you already admitted, I was right. You were just casting about for something, anything, to try to pick at, regardless of how valid an argument you could make out of it. You just haven't stopped hoping to get reeeeally lucky and stumble upon something valid.

Sure, Fudbucker equates the probabilities of two different events while their prior probabilities are unequal.

Heh. That's not actually a justification for your prior claim, at all. He was certainly doing that, yes, but that's not even remotely what you claimed. Try not to move the goalposts so much, would you?

My position here is that there is prior probability for the existence of life in the universe, right here on Earth.

Take a step back and consider why, exactly, you were making a fuss. That has nothing at all to do with the topic that was under discussion, and I, along with quite a few others, had pointed that out earlier in the thread anyways.

It therefore might exist elsewhere.

Therefore? Bad logic. Indeed, it may well exist elsewhere, that life exists here on Earth does count as prior probability for it, and given that life here demonstrates unequivocally that it can exist, it should be regarded as more likely than something that we don't have valid reason to believe even can exist. Still, the prior probability is not why it may exist elsewhere in any sense.

It may not, but at least, life in the universe has been observed to exist, there is prior probability.

ESP on the other hand has never been demonstrated to exist, When attempting to gauge the probability for ESP, one has to consider the lack of prior probability.
Although each may or may not exist, the probabilities are different.

Probability statements are not statements of fact, although they can show the chances for an event to take place ..... if based on correct data, obviously.

So, in short, you were completely ignoring the topic that was actually being discussed, despite repeatedly being told what it was.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
As you may or may not have noticed, a lot of people have tendencies to employ logic and arguments that are not entirely rational.
...

Yes, I have. And I am.

As far as not discussing the topic is concerned, you may want to compare the thread topic:
"Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?"
with your complaint:

...

It may not, but at least, life in the universe has been observed to exist, there is prior probability.

ESP on the other hand has never been demonstrated to exist, When attempting to gauge the probability for ESP, one has to consider the lack of prior probability.
Although each may or may not exist, the probabilities are different.

Probability statements are not statements of fact, although they can show the chances for an event to take place ..... if based on correct data, obviously.

So, in short, you were completely ignoring the topic that was actually being discussed, despite repeatedly being told what it was.

You complain about me ignoring the topic under discussion, while I was responding directly to your request to clarify:

...
As for prior probability and possibilities, I'd like to have you clarify your argument. ...

Which I did in an on topic fashion.

I feel no need to correct your other mistakes.

 

[Aridas]

As far as not discussing the topic is concerned, you may want to compare the thread topic:
"Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?"
with your complaint:


You complain about me ignoring the topic under discussion, while I was responding directly to your request to clarify:

Which I did in an on topic fashion.

I feel no need to correct your other mistakes.

Ha. You're admitting again to completely ignoring the context when you started all this foolishness, in other words. As for ignoring the topic under discussion, it's pretty much the same thing, I'm talking about when you started this nonsense and persisted, even after what the subject at hand actually was there was explained repeatedly, not just now, as should have been obvious from the larger context over the thread. Hopefully, you are, in fact, aware that, within a single thread, there are frequently multiple subjects that are discussed. Furthermore, you are hopefully aware that arguments that are relevant to one of them are not necessarily relevant to all of them.

Certainly, the title question has, in fact, been the primary subject under discussion. However, the cards/bachelor/coin discussion was a distinctly separate subject with very little direct relevance or similarity to the primary subject, contrary to what you seem to wish it was. As noted previously, taking your arguments as actually made, in context, means that you would be supporting an extremely stupid form of woo. Seriously, just let it rest. There's no "victory" for you here, no matter how much you sacrifice truth in your attempts to get it.

 

[Aridas]

I posted a more speculative thread in the Religion Forum. I had a pretty good idea my mind wouldn't be changed on this thread (sorry, Baron, in the end I didn't end up agreeing with you, but it was a good point). I have no idea where the thread I just put in R&P will go.

A bit belatedly, thank you for the implied invitation. However, with so very many of the points that I made in this thread left completely unaddressed or only addressed with the invocation of fallacies, is there any reason that I should seek out the thread in question?

 

[Daylightstar]

... There's no "victory" for you here, no matter how much you sacrifice truth in your attempts to get it.

That sounds quite emotional.
Meh .....

 

[Jango]

Both are probable.

 

[Daylightstar]

Both are probable.

Could you elaborate a little bit to make it more interesting?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Both are probable.

I would object, although it may be a nit pik. Advanced alien life is probable. ESP is remotely possible, but that possibility is not established.

In order for ESP to be probable, you first need to establish it is possible. That hasn't been done AFAIK. However, I am all ears. If you have some knowledge pertaining to how ESP is even possible, please do tell.

 

[Jango]

I would object, although it may be a nit pik. Advanced alien life is probable. ESP is remotely possible, but that possibility is not established.

In order for ESP to be probable, you first need to establish it is possible. That hasn't been done AFAIK. However, I am all ears. If you have some knowledge pertaining to how ESP is even possible, please do tell.

Can we get definitions out of the way first then? All I need to know is how you define/view ESP, and we shall continue.

 

[beachnut]

Both are probable.

Not ESP. ESP remains at zero.

 

[Jango]

Could you elaborate a little bit to make it more interesting?

Advanced Alien Life = It's a really big place (our observable universe) in all directions with an unknown quantity of **** inside of it.

ESP = I suppose would be akin to what my cold weather instructor told me, Clear Thoughted Determination, along with be it deformity or biochemical improvement to the regions of the brain that are responsible for what you're doing right now as you read this through your mind that little voice, your internal voice, is talkin', where that comes from in the brain, I would suppose. The **** that's being done to brains nowadays makes this more of a reality than just a possibility -- like the way the movie the Bourne Legacy portrays the black project of pharmaceutically altering soldiers. I had never really given it a second thought until I happened upon some articles about the writer/director and his exploration of very interesting concepts -- and then I found this: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/marshall.html

The rest was elementary, researching the Pentagon & DARPA's interest in the brain and if pharmaceutical companies are working with the security services.

 

[Jango]

Not ESP. ESP remains at zero.

There's over 7,000,000,000 of us on this planet, you cannot absolutely say that ESP remains at zero, you are assuming that because you do not know it for a fact whatsoever.