Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[jt512]

It is only gibberish if you don't understand probabilities,

said the farmer to the statistician.

If something is absolutely proven true beyond all doubt, It has a probability of 1. We are life, and we built a civilization. We exist. The probability of at least 1 civilised life form in the universe is 1,

That was actually intelligible English. What you wrote before,

The set that includes Advanced life is 1.

was not.

 

[Nonpareil]

Science does not have the capacity to rule definitively either way.

Wrong.

Quite obviously, we acknowledge self-report as evidence of a great deal of what transpires within our subjective experience….simply because we have no scientific means of definitively adjudicating neural activity (despite what many idiots frequently assert).

Complete non sequitur; we use self-report as evidence in day-to-day circumstances because our standard of evidence for such events is not so high as to require further verification.

We do not do it because further verification is impossible.

Your inability to differentiate between differing levels of formality in science does not mean that differing levels of formality do not exist.

I could (and have on previous threads) presented an all-but endless list of human characteristics that only exist phenomenally because they have been established to anecdotally.

Love (for example) only exists as a fact because of anecdotal evidence.

Wrong.

We can objectively verify that emotions exist. We can objectively verify that there is an emotion, or collection of same, that results in roughly equivalent behavioral patterns across multiple persons. We can objectively verify that this emotion is referred to as "love".

This is not difficult.

Anyone who has taken any time to study the issue of ESP knows…without a shadow of a doubt…that the issues are complex in the extreme.

No.

The people who study ESP and want to believe in it think that it is complex.

The people who study ESP without any prior bias know that it is an extremely simple subject, because it is incoherent nonsense without any evidential support whatsoever.

Whatever…the point of it all, is that anecdotes matter. You know they matter, and I know they matter. They matter because they influence opinions / conclusions / feelings / thoughts. That which influences in such a manner is called evidence.

And yet they are not of themselves evidence of anything more than the fact that the anecdote exists, and the person repeating it presumably believes it to be true.

To suddenly suggest that, as soon as this same evidence enters the scientific arena it becomes questionable is inconsistent and illogical. It may lack features that enable it to be successfully adjudicated within a scientific epistemology, but that is because of the limitations of science, not because of the limitations of the evidence.

They can be adjudicated.

They just aren't in any way that you like.

Thus…if someone claims to have experienced some variety of anomalous psychological phenomena, they deserve the same respect and acknowledgement as if they had come to any other fundamentally relevant conclusion

You mean looking into it before drawing a conclusion?

We have.

They're wrong.

especially given that science has absolutely no way to even begin to establish what did, or did not, actually occur…and, as of this point in time, has come nowhere close to establishing how anything at all actually does occur when it comes to the relationship between the brain and human consciousness (and yes…unlike so many of the idiots on these threads, I can actually provide links to support these conclusions).

Bunk.

 

[Pixel42]

Complete non sequitur; we use self-report as evidence in day-to-day circumstances because our standard of evidence for such events is not so high as to require further verification.

We do not do it because further verification is impossible.

To use my favourite example: we would accept the claim "there is a shed at the bottom of my garden" without further verification; we would not accept the claim "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" without further verification.

 

[jt512]

It seems that several posters who claim knowledge about BT really don't seem to understand it.

That is a very serious allegation. If it is true, then there are people posting on the Internet who don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Daylightstar]

Sure, if I can. What kind of example are you looking for? The idea that the prior always sums to 1 or the consequent probability?

I mean an example of how the consequent is misunderstood to be never 1 or 0.

...
The consequent probability, however, can never be either 1 or 0 -- something which some posters are having difficulty understanding.

 

[Daylightstar]

Thank you, I would agree. However, I must also admit that I myself picked up the intended meaning from the context

So, it appears this was not the intended meaning.

 

[Daylightstar]

I mean an example of how the consequent is misunderstood to be never 1 or 0.

Sorry, hadn't read everything before starting to respond. If the question is redundant, no need to answer it

 

[Daylightstar]

If the credibility of the data is of such excruciating interest to you…WHY DON’T YOU JUST EMAIL THE GUY WHO WROTE IT????

I didn’t write the blog, I didn’t do the experiments, I didn’t collect the data, I didn't do the analysis. Why, if you’re SO interested in the validity of it all…do you want to waste your time with me? Why not talk to the author?

….unless you really couldn’t care less. In which case, neither do I.

Forget the author, I'm talking to you.

This:

...

Has he, according to you, shown in that article, the data of the experiments he referred to, to be valid?

Yes.
...

So, where?

 

[steenkh]

The propositions H1, there is a grue in my house, and H2 there isn't have equal probabilities to me because of my total ignorance about them. The logic is simple: I have no reason to believe that P(H1) > P(H0) and no reason to believe that P(H0) > P(H1), but P(H1) + P(H0) = 1; therefore, P(H1) = P(H0) = 0.5. This is the principle of indifference.

I am sorry to bring an old post up like this, but this thread is moving faster than I can keep up!

You lost me with this quote. There is no reason to believe that P(H1) > P(H0), and there is also no reason to believe that P(H0) > P(H1), and this leads you to believe that P(H0) = P(H1). Why? I would have said there is no reason to believe any of these, so it would be impossible to assign a probability.

Also, when I read the Wikipedia article that you linked to, I find:

The principle of indifference states that if the n possibilities are indistinguishable except for their names, then each possibility should be assigned a probability equal to 1/n

I do not think that ESP and the existence of alien life are possibilities that are indistinguishable except for their names, and for that reason it seems that the principle of indifference is not applicable here.

 

[Dinwar]

To use my favourite example: we would accept the claim "there is a shed at the bottom of my garden" without further verification; we would not accept the claim "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" without further verification.

Difference in categories. One is a casual statement, made in casual conversation. If I said "There's a shed at the bottom of my garden" and there was a question about where the property line is, you can bet anything that there'd be a surveyer out there making 100% sure it's MY garden. This actually came up recently--my wife and I are buying a house, and there was a question as to whether the shed is on our property or if it goes a few feet into the neighbor's property (maintenance and property lines don't fully line up out there, due to some historic issues between neighbors).

Similarly, if I'm in a casual conversation and I claim to have had a dream that told the future, I probably won't get questioned too hard about it. It's an amusing story. If, in contrast, I attempt to use it as evidence in a scientific discussion, it's going to be picked apart and analyzed and tested and re-tested to Hell and back, because that's what we do with ALL data. I would be using it to prove something about reality, and therefore I would need to demonstrate that it's true.

You lost me with this quote. There is no reason to believe that P(H1) > P(H0), and there is also no reason to believe that P(H0) > P(H1), and this leads you to believe that P(H0) = P(H1). Why? I would have said there is no reason to believe any of these, so it would be impossible to assign a probability.

That's the honest way to do it. There's no justification for believing ANYTHING about a system which one is completely ignorant of. To assign ANY probability is to grossly and negligently go beyond what the data can support. If you don't know what a grue is you don't say there's a 50/50 chance one is in your house; you say "What the devil is a grue?"

 

[Daylightstar]

..
You asked me if I believed he had shown the data to be valid. I said yes.

Do you have the slightest interest in the data…or are you merely interested in finding out about my own opinions?

I asked you whether according to you, the guy showed in that article, the data of the experiments he referred to, to be valid?
You answered yes, I asked you where, you then appear to go through great lengths to avoid showing where in the article the guy showed that.

So, again, please, simply show me where in the article, according to you, the guy showed the data of the experiments he referred to, to be valid.

 

[Dinwar]

We have been over this in multiple threads, and every time, after it has been explained to you repeatedly exactly why science can, and does, adjudicate authoritatively on exactly the issues you bring up, you fall back on saying "but science can't-".

Anything with a consistent rule set can be tested scientifically. There are card games where only one player knows the rules at the start of the game (ever been on a long trip in school? you get bored!). Players learn the rules as they go. Most do so haphazardly, but one CAN perferm specific experiments to learn the rules of the game--ie, examine the game scientifically. Similarly, in a fantasy setting one could examine that world scientifically--as long as the magic and biology are consistent they are amenable to scientific examination.

The only things required for something to be examined scientifically are that it be comprehensible to humans in some fashion and that the system operates by consistent rules.

So, to say something cannot be examined scientifically is to say one of two things: either 1) it is incomprehensible to humans, in which case those claiming knowledge of it are frauds; or 2) the rules are not consistent, and therefore those claiming knowledge of it are frauds. Either way, if something cannot be examined scientifically--if there is no possible way for it to be so examined, even in theory--there's no way to claim knowledge about it.

There is one possible exception: IF deities exist, then divine revelation is a possibility. As no deities have been shown to exist, and none have been proposed as an explanation for ESP in this thread, we can dismiss this concept. Furthermore, divine revelation is only revelation to the person it is revealed to--when that person tells me about it, it becomes hearsay, NOT revelation, and therefore must be examined the same as any other claim. Thus, even revelation can't ensure knowledge of things that science can't examine. (Note that I only include this to fill out the possibility space--my point is that scientific examination works for ALL systems that humans have been able to come up with so far, from the absurd to the abstract to the real world.)

 

[Nonpareil]

So, to say something cannot be examined scientifically is to say one of two things: either 1) it is incomprehensible to humans, in which case those claiming knowledge of it are frauds; or 2) the rules are not consistent, and therefore those claiming knowledge of it are frauds.

I would quibble with the latter qualification, but only slightly; even if something is inconsistent, scientific examination would at least turn up something. Even something completely random, assuming it exists, must necessarily have some impact on the world that can be measured and quantified and examined. That's what it means to exist.

Practical limitations might exist, but in theory we should be able to examine even entirely random phenomena.

But, like I said, it's a quibble, not a major objection.

 

[Dinwar]

I would quibble with the latter qualification, but only slightly; even if something is inconsistent, scientific examination would at least turn up something. Even something completely random, assuming it exists, must necessarily have some impact on the world that can be measured and quantified and examined. That's what it means to exist.

Practical limitations might exist, but in theory we should be able to examine even entirely random phenomena.

But, like I said, it's a quibble, not a major objection.

I'll agree that if the phenomenon is random it's amenable to scientific examination--in fact, there's a whole suite of methods for dealing with exactly that. Truly random events are actually some of the easiest to work with in science, strangely enough.

What I was talking about is if the RULES were random--if the principles determining the phenomenon are random, in other words. Imagine if f=ma randomly changed values--so sometimes it's f=ma, sometimes it's f=(m^2)a, sometimes it's f=m^a, sometimes it's f=m/a, etc., and there was no way to determine which one's coming next or when it's coming. Such a system would be more or less impossible to test, except to demonstrate "This is random". I can't imagine a functional universe where that sort of thing happens, but if one existed science wouldn't work in it.

 

[Nonpareil]

Imagine if f=ma randomly changed values--so sometimes it's f=ma, sometimes it's f=(m^2)a, sometimes it's f=m^a, sometimes it's f=m/a, etc., and there was no way to determine which one's coming next or when it's coming. Such a system would be more or less impossible to test, except to demonstrate "This is random".

Yes, exactly. That's what I was saying, and exactly why I said it was a quibble rather than a full disagreement - we could, at the very least, test it to such an extent as to determine that it was random. We couldn't necessarily determine much more, but that much, at least, we could be certain of.

 

[Dinwar]

Yes, exactly. That's what I was saying, and exactly why I said it was a quibble rather than a full disagreement - we could, at the very least, test it to such an extent as to determine that it was random. We couldn't necessarily determine much more, but that much, at least, we could be certain of.

Ah, okay. It was your use of the term "phenomenon" that confused me--I thought you were referring to specific events, not the rules governing them. I think we're on the same page now--or, rather, I've gotten on the same page as you!

 

[Nonpareil]

So, again, please, simply show me where in the article, according to you, the guy showed the data of the experiments he referred to, to be valid.

E V E R Y W H E R E?

Comedy gold.

 

[Dinwar]

Comedy gold.

It's sad, really. He's trying to present scientific arguments, without understanding how one validates experiments. Kinda like watching a five year old play against a chess grandmater and asking to be "kinged".

 

[Daylightstar]

E V E R Y W H E R E?
...

No, just in the article.

 

[Dinwar]

Sorry dude, you're flat out wrong on this one. There is no science that can either explicitly or definitively adjudicate human subjective experience (that's what so many of the idiots on these threads keep insisting). If you know of one I'll direct you to the Nobel committee.

Psychology. Cognitive behavioral therapy specifically addresses this, and is one of the most effective therapy types in psychology.

I expect my Nobel prize in the mail. If the Nobel prize committee is unwilling to offer it, I expect you to do so yourself.

I will agree that neurology isn't sufficient to explain human behavior, and that believing it to be so is overly-reductionistic. That said, neurology isn't the only field involved here. We CAN examine human thoughts and emotions in a rigorous scientific maner. The fact that you missed AN ENTIRE FIELD OF SCIENCE does not make me confident in your capacity to evaluate the validity of claims.

THis is a confession that ESP isn't real, by the way. It's you admitting it's a "human subjective experience"--meaning it's not really happening, people just THINK it's happening. Cognitive errors and the like. So we can dismiss it as a possibility at this point--meaning that, since extraterrestrial intelligent life IS a possibility, it is by definition more likely.

Your constant personal attacks and attempts to derail the thread are neither interesting nor relevant.

Agreed. The posting style annnnoid has used in this thread demonstrates a personal attachment to the conclusion, rather than the conclusion following the evidence. It's almost as if questioning his beliefs is questioning him personally...