Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Daylightstar]

Y... Not all parapsychologists believe that there has to be an "immaterial" explanation for purported psi phenomena, only that these phenomena are not currently explained. ...

And they would like to keep it that way. They don't even have an actual paranormal phenomenon to explain.

... If it is ever discovered that humans can detect the thoughts of others by electromagnetic forces, then Bem and parapsychologists like him will feel vindicated.

So, are Bem and others in their search for ESP specifically looking for electromagnetic signals?
If not, they would have no reason to feel vindicated.

 

[Darat]

...where has 'love' been demonstrated to actually exist?

And answer is in human behaviour - we've even started to work out the chemistry behind the behaviour: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993160-3,00.html#ixzz1CqLUN8ii

Your question is in fact just a silly question that some folk like to think is somehow really profound - it is no more profound than "...where has "run" been demonstrated to actually exist?"

Love is a behaviour, like run is a behaviour like eat is a behaviour - they are simply verbs.

 

[Aridas]

I guess my issue is that I don't understand what this adds to the conversation, other than the danger of over-stating one's case. What benefit is there to presenting a complete lack of data in this format?

There's very little direct benefit to doing so for most purposes, fairly obviously. Still, there are two fairly closely related scenarios, just off the top of my head, where I can see its use as reasonable. The first and probably most relevant is if it is being used as an example to help explain how some aspects of Bayesian calculations work. The second would be if it's directly answering a question about what the relevant numbers for the Bayesian calculation is in such a case.

according to all of you, anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Are you trying to get laughs here?

Then you don't understand what the word "exists" means.

If ESP is not demonstrable, even in principle, then by definition it does not exist.

This would require an odd understanding of "exists" to be true. Generally, whether something exists is considered separate from whether it's observed or demonstrated in any way. If, for example, there exists another universe that we cannot interact with in any relevant way, due to the physical limitations of reality, the fact that we cannot demonstrate, even in principle, that there's life in it has no effect on whether there actually is life in it. Similarly, in principle, ESP could exist, but not be demonstrable for a few potential reasons. In those cases, there's still nothing wrong with saying that we have no solid reason to believe that it exists, but saying that it doesn't exist would simply be incorrect.

 

[annnnoid]

We've been over this. Aside from the fact that there are neuroscientists who are making great strides in that area (see Christof Koch, etc.), we still know that consciousness is material in origin.

…and what is matter: Don’t know.

…and how is consciousness generated out of the physical activity of the brain: Don’t know.

…and what even is consciousness: Don’t know.

Amazing isn’t it…how much we know.

So you're still stuck with absolute diddly for evidence.

…except hundreds of millions of reports of the phenomena

. But that’s irrelevant.

Son, it is not my job to define for you every single action that may be taken as a sign of love. Aside from the fact that it is an exceptionally complex emotion that has varying signs from person to person and thus each case must be considered individually, which would make the whole thing an exercise in futility, you don't actually care.

You just said…and I quote:

IT’S NOT HARD.

….but all of a sudden…it’s flat out impossible (not to mention, and again I quote: 'exceptionally complex').

You know full well that emotions can be observed,

ONLY anecdotally. You have, so far, utterly failed to provide a shred of evidence to support your nonsensical claims that there is any other way.

Care to actually back up your assertions…for once!

and that behavioral evidence is very different from anecdotes. I would hope - but don't actually believe - that at this point you also understand the whole matter of difference in degrees of formality. But you don't care, because you're just attempting the same thing you always do: applying unreasonable standards of evidence and demanding that others spoon-feed you proofs of things that have been known for years so that you can avoid admitting that you're wrong.

Do I need to remind you.

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO SAID…IT IS NOT HARD.

…now it is impossible.

What am I supposed to conclude…that it is you who are now ‘staggeringly ignorant’. Is that it?

Your entire post is indisputable evidence of the thoughts you wanted to convey.

Do you want to know the word that descries your ENTIRE post?

It is called an ANECDOTE!

So tell me again how anecdotal evidence is worthless…or are you actually going to sit there and insist that there must be some manner of objective proof that I, and everyone who reads your post, subscribe to before we can trust that what you said is actually what you meant to say.

Like I said…do let me know when you arrive at a sane argument.

Anecdotal evidence has often been the first indication that there is something of interest happening which may repay more careful study, but it is never sufficient to establish the existence of any phenomenon because of all the ways in which we know we can inadvertantly fool ourselves into thinking we see patterns that are not really there.

…so tell me again how we know ‘love’ exists (or any of the myriad other ‘human’ conditions) since the ONLY way we have of detecting it is anecdotally (by personal observation).

And answer is in human behaviour - we've even started to work out the chemistry behind the behaviour: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993160-3,00.html#ixzz1CqLUN8ii

Your question is in fact just a silly question that some folk like to think is somehow really profound - it is no more profound than "...where has "run" been demonstrated to actually exist?"

Love is a behaviour, like run is a behaviour like eat is a behaviour - they are simply verbs.

…yes, of course. It’s just a silly question. Tell me Darat…do you experience an emotion called ‘run’.

No…didn’t think so.

Any more ‘silly’ questions.

Why don’t we toss the question out to the peanut gallery:

“Does anyone out there experience an emotion called ‘run’ (if so, we’ll just add it the vast list of emotions currently on the books).”

I suppose we’ll wait and see what kind of response we get.

 

[Dinwar]

And answer is in human behaviour - we've even started to work out the chemistry behind the behaviour

I'm reasonably certain that if you asked a psychologist "Does love exist?" they would be able to provide a rigorous answer as well.

This would require an odd understanding of "exists" to be true. Generally, whether something exists is considered separate from whether it's observed or demonstrated in any way.

While true from a philosophical standpoint, Nonpareil has a point. If something exists, it has an affect on the world. That affect can be measured. If that affect CAN'T be measured, we have to wonder if the thing actually exists. Folks say it's impossible to prove a negative, but when increased rigor in experimentation results in decreased signal, or if repeated experimentation shows that the signal is no greater than the noise, it's very strong evidence that the thing doesn't exist.

It's an epistemological issue. If you can't show that something exists, how can you say it does? We can speculate and play "What If" and have bull sessions all we want, but when it comes down to brass tacks, if you have no evidence that something exists you cannot honestly say it does. There's nothing upon which to base a statement that it exists.

It's even worse here. ESP is stated to have an impact on the world--specifically, on human minds. If we can demonstrate that it doesn't, we have demonstrated that a critical aspect of ESP doesn't exist. In fact, we've demonstrated that the ONLY aspect of ESP that's been defined doesn't exist. Something else might--and the papers I linked to earlier show a few options--but ESP will have been shown to be false.

 

[Nonpareil]

This would require an odd understanding of "exists" to be true. Generally, whether something exists is considered separate from whether it's observed or demonstrated in any way. If, for example, there exists another universe that we cannot interact with in any relevant way, due to the physical limitations of reality, the fact that we cannot demonstrate, even in principle, that there's life in it has no effect on whether there actually is life in it.

That universe would also, by its own definition - since we cannot ever interact with it and thus cannot ever, even in theory, produce any evidence that it exists, leaving us with no difference between it existing and not existing - not exist.

I've gone over this in other threads, but the basic idea (and responses to some common objections) can be most easily found here.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

…yes, of course. It’s just a silly question. Tell me Darat…do you experience an emotion called ‘run’.

No…didn’t think so.

Goal posts being moved.

...snip...

Any more ‘silly’ questions.

Yes many - see the questions in your last post before my reply. You ask questions that you think are somehow profound and revealing - and they are usually either silly, non sequiturs or have been explained and answered for many many years. Remember your ignorance of something does not make it unknown or unanswerable by others.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes many - see the questions in your last post before my reply. You ask questions that you think are somehow profound and revealing - and they are usually either silly, non sequiturs or have been explained and answered for many many years. Remember your ignorance of something does not make it unknown or unanswerable by others.

This is his standard method of operation, yes. As you can see in his previous reply.

EDIT: He also doesn't seem to grasp the difference between an anecdote and observation, which makes this entire discussion pointless.

 

[Dinwar]

EDIT: He also doesn't seem to grasp the difference between an anecdote and observation, which makes this entire discussion pointless.

Yeah.....My mother used to say that a little knoweldge is more dangerous than no knowledge, and this is a perfect example.

 

[Aridas]

While true from a philosophical standpoint, Nonpareil has a point. If something exists, it has an affect on the world. That affect can be measured. If that affect CAN'T be measured, we have to wonder if the thing actually exists.

It's worth pointing out that I did address this shortly after what you quoted with the no solid reason to believe that something is the case bit. Again, I suspect that we're largely in agreement here.

Folks say it's impossible to prove a negative, but when increased rigor in experimentation results in decreased signal, or if repeated experimentation shows that the signal is no greater than the noise, it's very strong evidence that the thing doesn't exist.

Impossible via the scientific method, perhaps. Not impossible if something is claiming that multiple mutually exclusive things are all the case, though. Yes, though, evidence of absence where something can reasonably be expected is indeed evidence of absence. I wouldn't call that "very strong," myself, though, as a general rule for that kind of evidence.

It's even worse here. ESP is stated to have an impact on the world--specifically, on human minds. If we can demonstrate that it doesn't, we have demonstrated that a critical aspect of ESP doesn't exist. In fact, we've demonstrated that the ONLY aspect of ESP that's been defined doesn't exist. Something else might--and the papers I linked to earlier show a few options--but ESP will have been shown to be false.

Or, a bit more technically, the claims about ESP in question will be shown to not be a better explanation for whichever claimed phenomena is being tested than explanations that can be demonstrated to exist.

That universe would also, by its own definition - since we cannot ever interact with it and thus cannot ever, even in theory, produce any evidence that it exists, leaving us with no difference between it existing and not existing - not exist.

There's two main problems here, though I could poke at a couple more things. First, it was already established to exist for the purposes for the example, so trying to fight that is a bit pointless. As it stands, though, you're arguing that something's objective existence is or should be treated as dependent upon an entirely arbitrary subjective perspective or, as the case may be, an entirely arbitrary set of subjective perspectives. Agreeing with that would require violating some rather basic assumptions that we make for entirely practical purposes. What, exactly, do you think this line of argument has that is more desirable overall to use than that something's objective existence is or should be treated as independent of all entirely subjective perspectives?

Second, at last check, some scientists seem to have determined that one or more other universes have, in fact, affected our universe, giving evidence that at least one other universe does, in fact, exist. Yet, given the nature of the evidence, while there is interaction, this interaction is not sufficient to determine whether there is or was life there. In other words, exactly my example. Given that, what honesty is there in saying that life doesn't and didn't exist in said universe, as you're trying to have done, instead of simply saying "I don't know" or whichever equivalent?

I've gone over this in other threads, but the basic idea (and responses to some common objections) can be most easily found here.

My apologies, but I'm not interested in reading an entire thread to see how you justify what, at this point, looks like a largely pointless attempt to avoid actually acknowledging and working within our inherent limits.

 

[annnnoid]

Are you trying to get laughs here?

No. It has frequently been claimed that anecdotes have no evidentiary value. Go look.

I'm reasonably certain that if you asked a psychologist "Does love exist?" they would be able to provide a rigorous answer as well.

…and if you ask any psychologist they would also agree that there is no scientific way to definitively, quantifiably, adjudicate the phenomenon (which is precisely why many scientists do not regard psychology as a science). They would HAVE to admit that the only way we know that ‘love’ exists is because people say it does.

Is that because it doesn’t exist? Obviously not. We human beings quantifiably adjudicate that phenomenon (and many others) all the time. The epistemology of science simply has yet to develop the capacity to do so.

Science (the cognitive disciplines) have developed innumerable methods of circumstantially / conditionally adjudicating human cognitive functions…with varying degrees of success (as those papers you submitted quite ably demonstrate). There are, as yet, no direct methods of doing so (contrary to what has frequently been claimed here).

…which is why, whenever you are in a hospital and the doctor wants to know the level of pain you are feeling…they actually have to ask you. They can measure a million other things that are going on in your body, but they cannot measure what you are feeling.

Anecdotes.

So…here we have an anecdote that I have presented that indisputably / unconditionally establishes the evidentiary value of anecdotes.

(…though…to be fair, in relation to this particular issue, new techniques are being developed with fMRI that have this capacity [with a measurable degrees of accuracy]…but ‘pain’ is a fairly simple cognitive function and fMRI is a very expensive technology and it is very likely that, until economical alternatives are developed, the most reliable approach will continue to be anecdotal).

EDIT: He also doesn't seem to grasp the difference between an anecdote and observation, which makes this entire discussion pointless.

…an anecdote IS a personal observation. By definition.

You (and others) consistently insist that personal observations (anecdotes) have no evidentiary value…

…by presenting a personal observation.

You think it through, you type it out, and you press ‘submit’. And there, for all to see at the ISF…is your very own personal observation (anecdote).

…and you are doing this at a place that would not exist were it not for the evidentiary value of personal observations.

The long and the short of it is, and this is unconditionally indisputable, that personal observations (anecdotes) do, in fact, have evidentiary value.

Not unconditional evidentiary value…but evidentiary value just the same.

This forum would cease immediately if they did not.

And when we have a phenomenon (ESP, psi, or whatever) statistically reported by hundreds of millions of people, that evidentiary value exists proportionately (with various arguable conditions).

Yeah.....My mother used to say that a little knoweldge is more dangerous than no knowledge, and this is a perfect example.

I would seriously like to know how anyone here can insist that personal observations (anecdotes) have no evidentiary value and then move on to the next post and flatly contradict that….personal observation!

 

[Nonpareil]

There's two main problems here, though I could poke at a couple more things. First, it was already established to exist for the purposes for the example, so trying to fight that is a bit pointless.

It's really not.

It's the same issue with p-zombies - hypothetical entities which behave exactly in every circumstance as if they are conscious, but are not actually conscious. The question is meant to be how one can differentiate between a p-zombie and actual consciousness.

The problem arises when you look at the hypothetical itself. An entity which behaves exactly in every circumstance as though it is conscious is conscious. To say "but it actually isn't" is nonsensical. You might as well say "it's blue, but it's not blue".

To say that it has been established to exist for the purposes of the hypothetical is pointless. The hypothetical is nonsensical; it's the same thing as asking if an unstoppable force or an immovable object would win. By definition, this hypothetical cannot happen.

As it stands, though, you're arguing that something's objective existence is or should be treated as dependent upon an entirely arbitrary subjective perspective.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that all things that exist must necessarily have an effect on the universe. If they do not have an effect on the universe, then they don't actually exist, because that's what "exist" means. As a corollary to that, all things that exist are necessarily detectable in some fashion, as they have some effect, however small, on the rest of the universe.

Note that I say "in some fashion". I am not saying that we, personally must be capable of detecting all things that exist.

Agreeing with that would require violating some rather basic assumptions that we make for entirely practical purposes. What, exactly, do you think this line of argument has that is more desirable overall to use than that something's objective existence is or should be treated as independent of all entirely subjective perspectives?

I don't, because I'm not arguing against that. In fact, that's exactly what I'm arguing for.

If something has objective existence, it is by necessity detectable.

Second, at last check, some scientists seem to have determined that one or more other universes have, in fact, affected our universe, giving evidence that at least one other universe does, in fact, exist. Yet, given the nature of the evidence, while there is interaction, this interaction is not sufficient to determine whether there is or was life there. In other words, exactly my example.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that (though I haven't personally seen this evidence; for the purposes of discussion, I am willing to accept that it exists). In fact, that is exactly my point. We know that these universes exist because their influence is detectable.

If that influence could not be detected, even in theory, then there would be no difference between those universes existing and not existing - in which case, by definition, they do not exist.

From what I can tell, we are actually in complete agreement. You just misinterpreted something I said, though I'm not exactly sure what.

 

[Aridas]

No. It has frequently been claimed that anecdotes have no evidentiary value. Go look.

Your claim was that all the other posters here are or did claim that, not that it has been frequently claimed. Do you hereby retract your previous statement and choose to forward this altered claim? Or are you quite comfortable with moving the goalposts?

 

[Nonpareil]

So…here we have an anecdote that I have presented that indisputably / unconditionally establishes the evidentiary value of anecdotes.

No.

No, it doesn't.

…an anecdote IS a personal observation. By definition.

No, it isn't. It is a claim of observation.

Observation is the act of actually checking something. An anecdote is someone telling you that they have seen something.

This is not hard.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
And when we have a phenomenon (ESP, psi, or whatever) statistically reported by hundreds of millions of people, that evidentiary value exists proportionately (with various arguable conditions).
...

In spite of all those claims, we still don't have the actual phenomenon actually demonstrated.

 

[Donn]

…That these experiences are very very widely reported and that anecdotal evidence is a valid form of evidence (with conditions)

If evidence is an open door, anecdotes are barely a knock.

 

[annnnoid]

Your claim was that all the other posters here are or did claim that, not that it has been frequently claimed. Do you hereby retract your previous statement and choose to forward this altered claim? Or are you quite comfortable with moving the goalposts?

Well yes…of course. If you put it that way. So far no one has disputed the conclusion (except me) so it seems to me that everyone (including you???) is of that opinion. I do apologize for not taking a poll.

IT HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY CLAIMED THAT ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE.

Sign here if you agree………………………

There. Ok now?

No.

No, it doesn't.

No, it isn't. It is a claim of observation.

Observation is the act of actually checking something. An anecdote is someone telling you that they have seen something.

This is not hard.

…since everyone seems so hung up on the word ‘anecdote’, we’ll just change it to: personal observations / self-report / this-is-how-I-feel / this-is-what-I-think / this-is-what-happened-to-me / etc. etc. etc.

Do ‘personal observations’ have any evidentiary value?

Yes…or no?

There is a very very very simple way to resolve this whole issue.

Go to your nearest hospital and ask all the resident doctors and nurses whether or not they listen to what their patients tell them.

If doctor’s / nurses DO, in fact seriously consider the ‘personal observations’ that patients present to them…then ‘personal observations’ have evidentiary value.

If doctor’s / nurses DO NOT, in fact, seriously consider the ‘personal observations’ that patients present to them…then ‘personal observations’ have no evidentiary value.

Does anyone want to make any bets as to the outcome. I will bet every penny I will make from today until the day that I die on the first outcome.

You will…of course…have to have signed up on the ‘no’ side before any bets will be accepted (just so I won’t be accused of moving the goalposts again).

If evidence is an open door, anecdotes are barely a knock.

…ah, someone who agrees that anecdotes have evidentiary value. How nice. It’s funny really. There isn’t a psychoanalyst on the planet who wouldn’t conclude that anecdotes (or…as we’ve updated things….’personal observations’) have evidentiary value. Significant evidentiary value. Oh well. They’re just professionals, what do they know.

 

[Darat]

In spite of all those claims, we still don't have the actual phenomenon actually demonstrated.

Actually we do, we now know how fallible memory is, we know how we are biased to select confirming evidence, we now know how spoons are bent, how mind reading is done and the list go on and on. What we haven't done of course is find any evidence that there is any magic at work.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

…ah, someone who agrees that anecdotes have evidentiary value. How nice. It’s funny really. There isn’t a psychoanalyst on the planet who wouldn’t conclude that anecdotes (or…as we’ve updated things….’personal observations’) have evidentiary value. Significant evidentiary value. Oh well. They’re just professionals, what do they know.

Your problem is that the anecdotes are not what you are pushing what you are pushing is the assumption that those anecdotes arise from the magic you believe in. Otherwise all you would be presenting is the anecdote and drawing no conclusion from it.

And in regards to the "psychoanalyst" comment - the psychiatric profession is now well aware of fallibility of memory and how recollections can be polluted by the very act of trying to recall the memory.

 

[Nonpareil]

…since everyone seems so hung up on the word ‘anecdote’, we’ll just change it to: personal observations / self-report / this-is-how-I-feel / this-is-what-I-think / this-is-what-happened-to-me / etc. etc. etc.

That isn't what "anecdote" means.

You do not get to equivocate between two different words and then pretend that you have proven a point.

Do ‘personal observations’ have any evidentiary value?

Yes…or no?

Yes, of varying amounts depending on the verifiable accuracy of the observation.

"Observation" still does not mean "anecdote".

There is a very very very simple way to resolve this whole issue.

Yes, there is.

You could stop being deliberately obtuse.

Go to your nearest hospital and ask all the resident doctors and nurses whether or not they listen to what their patients tell them.

If doctor’s / nurses DO, in fact seriously consider the ‘personal observations’ that patients present to them…then ‘personal observations’ have evidentiary value.

If doctor’s / nurses DO NOT, in fact, seriously consider the ‘personal observations’ that patients present to them…then ‘personal observations’ have no evidentiary value.

I am in complete agreement with Pixel42's post above, but it should be understood that I differentiate between evidence - something that provides actual weight towards a conclusion - and reason to investigate.

Anecdotes are the latter. Taken on their own, they mean nothing other than that there might be something going on. Considered with observational evidence, they may lead to a conclusion being drawn - but that is due to weight of the evidence, not the anecdote; the anecdote was the catalyst for decision-making, not the reason any particular conclusion was drawn (assuming the thinker is not being irrational).

Read.

Doctors consider what patients tell them as a guideline of what to examine.

They do not use the patient's word evidence of any condition by itself. This is why we have tests in place. Patients can be mistaken, faking for drugs, incapable of properly expressing what they believe the issue to be, or any number of other things.

Or do you believe that you could walk into a doctor's office and say "I have cancer" and immediately be scheduled for chemotherapy without anyone checking to see if you actually do or not?