Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Aridas]

No, ESP is the ability to perceive something without any senses.

We already have a lot more than 5 senses. If even more were discovered it wouldn't make ESP any more possible, but simply reduce the number of abilities that are misattributed to it.

ESP is logically impossible because perception is defined as gaining information via the senses. No sensory input, no perception!

It would be closer to say that ESP is the ability to perceive something without any physically-based senses, instead of without any senses, but, given the vagueness of what's thrown under ESP, even that is a bit inaccurate. Still, it's close enough for multiple dictionaries to use and it's a decent place to start for those who are at all interested in understanding what the proponents are actually trying to claim, even if they think that it's nonsense through and through.

 

[AdMan]

No, ESP is the ability to perceive something without any senses.

We already have a lot more than 5 senses. If even more were discovered it wouldn't make ESP any more possible, but simply reduce the number of abilities that are misattributed to it.

ESP is logically impossible because perception is defined as gaining information via the senses. No sensory input, no perception!

Which would make "ESP" an oxymoron. As it's generally accepted, though, ESP means perception beyond any of the known senses, not perception beyond any sense. The term itself is confusing because of this.

Which of course does not make any of the supposed phenomena any more real.

 

[Daylightstar]

Sadly, there are some possibles involved that can't even conceptually be removed via science, so your last "possible" statement is in error. What science actually has done is demonstrate far beyond current reasonable doubt that it's not the case.

Don't hold back , explain which 'possibles' those are.

 

[Daylightstar]

It would be closer to say that ESP is the ability to perceive something without any physically-based senses, instead of without any senses, ...

I could agree with this. However, it would also require invention of another than physical entity which can mediate this perception.
It's no longer just about the ESP itself.

 

[Aridas]

Don't hold back , explain which 'possibles' those are.

Seriously? A few should honestly be immediately apparent to anyone with even a passing understanding of the subject. An easy set of examples are the deceptive god ones. The FSM could be actively altering the results that scientists (and non-scientists) obtain to give a coherent, but wrong understanding of how reality works. Like that set, the others are possibilities that involve the scientific results in question being inaccurate for various reasons, for reasons that science is functionally unable to address. Quite frankly, the limits on science that allow those possibles have to do with why it's the overwhelmingly useful tool that it is. There's really no good reason to hide or hide from that.

Incidentally, that the possibles in question are unreasonable to accept as the case for all practical purposes and cannot be reasonably regarded as in any way probable has no bearing on whether they're possible.

Beyond those, though, there's always the possibilities that involve mistakes that are correctable via science having been made and simply haven't been corrected yet for various potential reasons. If anyone thinks that this is in any way likely to be the case, of course, it's very much time for evidence in two forms to come into play. First, that they actually understand the currently held relevant scientific consensuses and data, and second, their data that demonstrates that it is wrong, preferably with a more useful theory attached. Especially when it comes to matters like ESP, the people who want to try this tend to fail at the first, before even touching the second.

I could agree with this. However, it would also require invention of another than physical entity which can mediate this perception.
It's no longer just about the ESP itself.

Some do try to claim such, and indeed, it can be regarded as not just about the version of ESP at that point. I did say that it's a little inaccurate, though. After all, I suspect that you've noticed others trying to work their versions into the "gaps" of actual science. "Quantum" is likely the only word that I need to say there to make an easy example.

 

[Daylightstar]

First, the context:

No it is no longer an assumption. We have now fully explored the scales at which "classic" ESP would have to interact and there is simply no longer a gap in which we could squeeze in a last "possible".

Sadly, there are some possibles involved that can't even conceptually be removed via science, so your last "possible" statement is in error. What science actually has done is demonstrate far beyond current reasonable doubt that it's not the case.

Don't hold back , explain which 'possibles' those are.

Seriously? A few should honestly be immediately apparent to anyone with even a passing understanding of the subject. An easy set of examples are the deceptive god ones. The FSM could be actively altering the results that scientists (and non-scientists) obtain to give a coherent, but wrong understanding of how reality works. Like that set, the others are possibilities that involve the scientific results in question being inaccurate for various reasons, for reasons that science is functionally unable to address. Quite frankly, the limits on science that allow those possibles have to do with why it's the overwhelmingly useful tool that it is. There's really no good reason to hide or hide from that.
...

Yes, seriously.
Could you give this another try, without inventing entities, please?* ^{(see below)}

...
Incidentally, that the possibles in question are unreasonable to accept as the case for all practical purposes and cannot be reasonably regarded as in any way probable has no bearing on whether they're possible.
...

Actually, we don't really know that your 'possibles' actually are possibles, you appear to simply define them as such.
On top of that, you've got it the wrong way around. It actually is about what bearing on the chances for existence of ESP these 'possibles' have, according to you.
The answer appears to be, none. Unless you have something better to offer in terms of your 'possibles'.

...
Beyond those, though, there's always the possibilities that involve mistakes that are correctable via science having been made and simply haven't been corrected yet for various potential reasons. If anyone thinks that this is in any way likely to be the case, of course, it's very much time for evidence in two forms to come into play. First, that they actually understand the currently held relevant scientific consensuses and data, and second, their data that demonstrates that it is wrong, preferably with a more useful theory attached. Especially when it comes to matters like ESP, the people who want to try this tend to fail at the first, before even touching the second.




Some do try to claim such, and indeed, it can be regarded as not just about the version of ESP at that point. I did say that it's a little inaccurate, though. After all, I suspect that you've noticed others trying to work their versions into the "gaps" of actual science. "Quantum" is likely the only word that I need to say there to make an easy example.

The biggest problem here is likely the lack of an actual phenomenon to be theorized about.
None of the talk, beliefs and claims in the world with respect to ESP establish the actual occurrence of ESP as a reality.

Some people try to fill the gaps in scientific understanding with fantasy, others try to fill the gaps in their own understanding with fantasy.
None of these fantasies establishes the actual occurrence of ESP as a reality.

If you still think that there are some 'possibles' for ESP to fit in, please be specific while you explain it.*

 

[steenkh]

No, ESP is the ability to perceive something without any senses.

We already have a lot more than 5 senses. If even more were discovered it wouldn't make ESP any more possible, but simply reduce the number of abilities that are misattributed to it.

ESP is logically impossible because perception is defined as gaining information via the senses. No sensory input, no perception!

ESP as a concept will not go away because we insist on irrelevant nit-picking of definitions. Of course you are right that ESP is impossible by definition, but that just makes the definition nonsensical, just like the definition of paranormal is impossible and nonsensical. In both cases it is necessary to adjust the definitions in order for them to make sense and be useful. This adjustment must state that it is the current number of senses for ESP, and the current understanding of what is physically possible in the case of paranormal that must be exceeded for these concepts.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, ESP is the ability to perceive something without any senses.

We already have a lot more than 5 senses. If even more were discovered it wouldn't make ESP any more possible, but simply reduce the number of abilities that are misattributed to it.

ESP is logically impossible because perception is defined as gaining information via the senses. No sensory input, no perception!

I believe that the thrust is that its information garnered via some mechanism other than known sensory inputs. That does nor preclude a sensory system as yet undiscovered. Similar to UFO, its not known but theoretically, could be.
However, while there are mechanisms that could explain the identity of said flying objects, there is none that can explain one that allows for mechanisms such as to allow a person to know the contents of page 17 of that book on my desk at home, from afar.

 

[Dinwar]

The number of senses is irrelevant. ESP stands for ExtraSensory Perception--it means knowledge entering the brain without the senses. But you may have a good point; at the very least, we shouldn't make assumptions about what the definition of ESP is in an argument.

 

[jaydeehess]

There have been experiments(see the latest Scientific American-Mind) that have induced simple thought in one person that were generated in the brain of another. A person in one room raises his arm and the person in another room does the same.
It has the receiver with probes inserted into the brain iirc. The receiving person does not know his arm moved until he looks at it.
This might be called ESP in its simplest form. However, is it really? I say no, there has simply been an artificially created 'sense' to induce thought from one person to another.

Greater understanding of brain mechanisms could, in theory, allow for learning by implanting experience and knowledge directly into the brain. Want to know how to fly a helicopter, sit in this chair, lean back and put this helmet on for ten minutes. Still its simply a new, artificial sensory pathway.
IMHO.

 

[Aridas]

First, the context:

Indeed. Congratulations on correctly identifying what I said and what it was in response to. Bravo!

Yes, seriously.
Could you give this another try, without inventing entities, please?* ^{(see below)}

"Inventing entities." Heh. Ignoring how inappropriate that term and line of argument is when dealing with this for the moment, there's a very important question that needs be answered before discussion can continue. What, exactly, are the requirements for something to be possible? Actually, nevermind, I'm going to be going over it momentarily anyways.

Actually, we don't really know that your 'possibles' actually are possibles,

Oh? So your evidence that they're impossible is... what? And if you don't actually have any valid evidence that they're impossible, on what grounds are you arguing? Possible does not mean that something is the case. It doesn't even mean that it's reasonable to accept as the case. It means that it could be the case, based on the knowledge currently available, and frankly, given the inherent limitations of the knowledge currently available to us, those things should be indisputedly "possible." Your personal feelings about that are rather irrelevant.

Now, to preempt the predictable complaint, the version of "possible" that you look like you want to be used here has the added assumption that a fairly specific subset of philosophical naturalism must be the case, which will rather invariably invoke problems such as circular logic, special pleading, or unsubstantiated assertion. Given that I quite disapprove of relying on fallacious arguments, I have no intention of agreeing to that use here.

you appear to simply define them as such.

I identify them as such, because they fit the definition and the concept. This is just like before when you accused me -

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

"Making it possible" only even could work as a criticism had I redefined terms, though it is tacitly admitting that my explanation works. Once again, I'm not redefining anything, I'm explaining such within the actual usage.

On top of that, you've got it the wrong way around. It actually is about what bearing on the chances for existence of ESP these 'possibles' have, according to you.
The answer appears to be, none.

*facepalm* Remember, points that are applicable to one argument are not always applicable to others. Either way, it just sounds like you were paying attention to what was actually said only far enough to try to figure out some way to try to make cheap shots and didn't really understand the concepts in question in the first place anyways. Regardless, the fact that "possibles" exist make the chances not 0, but means very little else when it comes to probability or how reasonable something is to accept. To put it another way, "possible" qualifies something to be scrutinized more seriously for how probable and/or reasonable it is to accept, but itself doesn't appreciably influence that. The identified set of possibles also separately have the traits that you quoted me listing, yes, which are, in fact, relevant to questions of probability and how reasonable it is. Those factors deal with why their meaning is negligible, though not none, like you seem to wish, given that they still count as possible.

Unless you have something better to offer in terms of your 'possibles'.

Such as? It sounds like you really, really wish I would start spouting woo here.

The biggest problem here is likely the lack of an actual phenomenon to be theorized about.
None of the talk, beliefs and claims in the world with respect to ESP establish the actual occurrence of ESP as a reality.

I'll agree that the biggest problem for those who are trying to support whichever form of ESP fairly certainly is the lack of solid evidence. That the most useful models of reality that we have exclude it follows closely behind.

 

[Daylightstar]

Indeed. Congratulations on correctly identifying what I said and what it was in response to. Bravo!
...

It's not exactly a first, only, now I wrote it down for your benefit.

I'll take a peek at your response later.

 

[Aridas]

It's not exactly a first, only, now I wrote it down for your benefit.

For the record, I am aware of this, which was part of why I found your attack on context to be so sad and amusing at the same time.

I'll take a peek at your response later.

No need for rush, by the way. I'm much more interested in the quality of one's arguments than the time it takes for them to be made.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
"Inventing entities." Heh. Ignoring how inappropriate that term is when dealing with this for the moment, ...
...

However, this is what you did. Those were your claimed 'possibles'. You now still have not brought to the discussion any of your claimed 'possibles' without inventing entities.

...
Oh? So your evidence that they're impossible is... what? ¹ And if you don't actually have any valid evidence that they're impossible, on what grounds are you arguing? Possible does not mean that something is the case. It doesn't even mean that it's reasonable to accept as the case. It means that it could be the case, based on the knowledge currently available, and frankly, given the inherent limitations of the knowledge currently available to us, those things should be ² indisputedly "possible." Your personal feelings about that are rather irrelevant.
...

Shifting burden of proof¹ and special pleading².
And you still have not shown your claimed 'possibles' without inventing entities.

...
Now, to preempt the predictable complaint, the version of "possible" that you look like you want to be used here has the added assumption that a fairly specific subset of philosophical naturalism must be the case, which will rather invariably invoke problems such as circular logic, special pleading, or unsubstantiated assertion. Given that I quite disapprove of relying on fallacious arguments, I have no intention of agreeing to that use here.
...

I'm still waiting for you to show your claimed 'possibles', without inventing entities.

...
I identify them as such, because they fit the definition and the concept. This is just like before when you accused me -
...

Those invented entities?
No, defined is the correct term. If you could actually identify them, you could actually share them.
But this appears to be problematic for you.

...
"Making it possible" only even could work as a criticism had I redefined terms, though it is tacitly admitting that my explanation works. Once again, I'm not redefining anything, I'm explaining such within the actual usage.
...

No, making it 'possible' is what I wrote. "possible" in single quotation marks. Do you think that this current discussion is an example that your 'explanation works'? (of many of the esoteric concepts you bring into the discussion)
Hmmmm?

...
*facepalm* Remember, points that are applicable to one argument are not always applicable to others. Either way, it just sounds like you were paying attention to what was actually said only far enough to try to figure out some way to try to make cheap shots and didn't really understand the concepts in question in the first place anyways. Regardless, the fact that "possibles" exist make the chances not 0, but means very little else when it comes to probability or how reasonable something is to accept. To put it another way, "possible" qualifies something to be scrutinized more seriously for how probable and/or reasonable it is to accept, but itself doesn't appreciably influence that. The identified set of possibles also separately have the traits that you quoted me listing, yes, which are, in fact, relevant to questions of probability and how reasonable it is. Those factors deal with why their meaning is negligible, though not none, like you seem to wish, given that they still count as possible.
...

Yes, you had it backwards, your 'possibles' would have to have any bearing on ESP.
You still have not shown how your claimed 'possibles' have any bearing on ESP. You say you have identified them, but you're not willing to share actual 'possibles'. Just invented entities.

...
Such as? It sounds like you really, really wish I would start spouting woo here.
...

You tell me.
You are the one with a claim for 'possibles' with respect to the probabilities or possibilities for ESP.
It's up to you to show these 'possibles', without inventing entities.

It really sounds like I would like you to show your claimed 'possibles' with regards to ESP, without inventing entities.

 

[Daylightstar]

For the record, I am aware of this, which was part of why I found your attack on context to be so sad and amusing at the same time.
...

Ehm, could you provide a link for this 'attack on context' please?
Thank you.

 

[Darat]

Sadly, there are some possibles involved that can't even conceptually be removed via science, so your last "possible" statement is in error. What science actually has done is demonstrate far beyond current reasonable doubt that it's not the case.

Sadly you haven't kept up to date with our current knowledge of the world, there is no longer a gap you can shove ESP or gfhzhin into.

 

[Daylightstar]

Aridas, would you be so kind as to write in full words one of your identified 'possibles', hilited below?:

Don't hold back , explain which 'possibles' those are.

Seriously? A few should honestly be immediately apparent to anyone with even a passing understanding of the subject. An easy set of examples are the deceptive god ones. The FSM could be actively altering the results that scientists (and non-scientists) obtain to give a coherent, but wrong understanding of how reality works. ...

Please fill in on the dotted line:

F..... S........ M......

Thank you

 

[Aridas]

However, this is what you did. Those were your claimed 'possibles'. You now still have not brought to the discussion any of your claimed 'possibles' without inventing entities.

The problem with calling what I did "inventing entities" is that I "invented" nothing. I identified what was already there, and frankly, has long been known to be there. While doing so, I also made sure to note how relevant and useful those possibilities are for practical purposes. Again, your personal feelings and ignorance are irrelevant here.

Shifting burden of proof¹

The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim, does it not? For your argument to be relevant, you have to be claiming that said scenarios are impossible. Go ahead, back up your claim.

ETA: The possibilities I pointed out are "possibles" because they can't properly be declared completely impossible. Basically, they're staying at a null position because the arguments against them being possible aren't sufficiently strong to declare them 100% impossible. Moving them to impossible, or, for that matter, to something worth being considered probable both take positive claims.

and special pleading².

Feel free to try to point out where?

Those invented entities?
No, defined is the correct term. If you could actually identify them, you could actually share them.
But this appears to be problematic for you.

Problematic? No. Unidentified? You really like freely ignoring important things whenever you feel like it, eh? But hey, if that link is where you're trying to take this back to, there's no point in continuing discussion with you, given that you've demonstrated that it's an utter waste of time. If you're not going to pay attention to what's actually being said and respond to it on its own merits, you're continuing to act as dishonestly as people like William Lane Craig.

No, making it 'possible' is what I wrote. "possible" in single quotation marks. Do you think that this current discussion is an example that your 'explanation works'? (of many of the esoteric concepts you bring into the discussion)
Hmmmm?

Esoteric? Like pointing out that "time" is relevant to what word use is accurate in a situation and as such is part of the context? Admittedly, you do seem to consider a lot of things to be rather esoteric.

You tell me.

Given that at no point have I claimed, supported, or otherwise been a proponent for ESP and have repeatedly pointed out that it's not a reasonable thing to accept as the case? This is you just being a troll.

Ehm, could you provide a link for this 'attack on context' please?
Thank you.

This, in particular.

Context, in this context, is that big, big fuzzy cloud of words in which everything is possible and everything can be made to fit.

Given that the context wasn't even remotely as you're trying to claim, it ends up as an attack on the proper acknowledgement of context.

Aridas, would you be so kind as to write in full words one of your identified 'possibles', hilited below?:


Please fill in on the dotted line:

F..... S........ M......

Thank you

You know not of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Truly, you should hope to someday be touched by its noodly appendage.

A bit more seriously, it's a bit of a humorous way to acknowledge the possibilities as exactly what they are. Possibilities that we have no reason to take seriously for any practical purposes, though they may indeed be internally coherent and flawlessly describe the available data.

Sadly you haven't kept up to date with our current knowledge of the world, there is no longer a gap you can shove ESP or gfhzhin into.

I'm quite certain that I know what knowledge you're talking about. As I already described, though, some possibilities circumvent science entirely. When you're adding hidden assumptions about staying within the bounds of, say, useful possibilities, your statement is more supportable, of course, but the people who you would have much cause to use such an argument with are frequently not doing that anyways, which negates the effectiveness and generates pointless friction.

ETA: If you're going to argue about ESP and most woo in general, "possible" is territory that needs to be shown to be rather meaningless from the start and/or avoided, rather than argued in. Saying that there's no gaps left for ESP to hide within what science has found, for example, isn't arguing in "possible" territory. Also, in case there's any doubt, I will directly agree with you that there's no gaps left for ESP to hide in what science has found.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
You know not of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Truly, you should hope to someday be touched by its noodly appendage.
...

Count the dots:

...
F..... S........ M......
.

So, one of your identified 'possibles': The Flying Spaghetty Monster.

 

[Daylightstar]

The problem with calling what I did "inventing entities" is that I "invented" nothing. I identified what was already there, and frankly, has long been known to be there. ...
...

Actually, you have a point here.
You did not invent those entities yourself, I should have been more precise. You were inventing their applicability. Effectively, meaning the same as inventing entities.
You rely on fantasy.

... While doing so, I also made sure to note how relevant and useful those possibilities are for practical purposes. Again, your personal feelings and ignorance are irrelevant here.
...

Your two ridiculous 'possibles' do not relate in any way to any increased probability for ESP to exist, although you presented them as such.