Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Craig B]

……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.

OK. Here's a response. The word "love" is both an abstract noun and a verb. So I may ask the peanut gallery, have you ever heard of any person "loving"? You have heard of people "running" I'm sure.

The word "loving" refers to the activity of the mind, just as "running" refers to the activity of the body. Both are verbs, and both denote manifestly real activities, one a mental or emotional activity; the other a physical or bodily activity.

 

[Dinwar]

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.

Last I read, the general view was that memory wasn't recollective (meaning recalling things), but rather built each time we remember something. When you pull it up into your conciousness various subroutines actually build the memory, rather than just playing a recording.

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

"Observation" still does not mean "anecdote".

Exactly. When I go out into the desert and make systematic observations of a project site to determine the paleontological potential, those are personal observations--but to call them anecdotes is flat-out wrong. It's the "systematic observations" part that makes the difference in this case: I'm not just going out there and wandering around, and if I happen to see something I just remember it. I have very specific protocols and recording devices (even if it's just a field notebook).

Any attempt to equate "observation" and "anecdote" is an attempt to destroy science, pure and simple. Science cannot be conducted without observation, so any attempt to make observations equal to anecdotes necessarily will have the consequence of dismissing ALL scientific investigations as mere anecdotes.

annnnoid isn't just willing to accept very low-quality evidence as proof--he's willing to destroy the entire scientific enterpirse to do so!

 

[Aridas]

I'm going to deal with this a bit out of order and may not completely, given that I should likely sleep soon.

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

Or, you chose your wording poorly.

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

Demonstrable, for all practical purposes, involves the thing in question being distinguishable from other explanations, to start with, not simply detected, as it looks like you tried to shift the goalposts to by the end of your post. Regardless, more than a few things have been detected in the past and incorrectly attributed to some seemingly more reasonable explanation at the time. Moving on from that, if something, by its nature, has not been demonstrated and couldn't realistically be distinguished from other explanations that can be separately demonstrated, for whatever reason, it's not really demonstrable. This may, indeed, be because it doesn't exist or is not the case, however, conceptually, that's not at all the only reason why something may not be distinguishable from other explanations, hence why it's not by definition that it doesn't exist if it's not demonstrable.

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.

In the case of your p-zombie example, you have part of a point. Indeed, there's not really any difference between a p-zombie and an "actual" consciousness for any practical purpose and where there might be a claimed difference, frankly, there's not really a basis for that claimed difference that cannot be easily shown to be special pleading. In that case, it is indeed reasonable to point out that the hypothetical is fundamentally fallacious.

The first problem that you actually run into here, though, is that you really didn't demonstrate that the hypothetical that I used is in any way fallacious or unreasonable to use.

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.

Good to have that cleared up a bit, though what you're saying in the quoted does directly contradict the wording you chose to use here -

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.

in the context of you disputing the point that I was making, namely, that objective existence is not reasonable to consider to be dependent on an arbitrary subjective perspective or set of perspectives. As a note, at no point did I say in the example that we could not find any evidence that it exists, nor that evidence could not be found if there was a magical way to travel to somewhere that it could. Merely that we couldn't interact with it in any relevant way to determine whether life existed in it based on the limits imposed on us by physical reality.

 

[Daylightstar]

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.

Perhaps I should have been more specific and say: "In spite of all those claims, we still don't have the actual paranormal phenomenon actually demonstrated."

The phenomena you refer to, yes, plenty demonstration available, everyday, even here on these forums.

 

[Dinwar]

Perhaps I should have been more specific and say: "In spite of all those claims, we still don't have the actual paranormal phenomenon actually demonstrated."

The phenomena you refer to, yes, plenty demonstration available, everyday, even here on these forums.

I don't think you needed to be more specific. It's just that your statement touched on something I remembered, and thought I'd toss it out in case it was useful or someone corrected me.

 

[Aridas]

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.

I actually did agree with you that anecdotal evidence can be reasonably considered evidence. That, in the larger picture, it's trumped by more objective evidence where available doesn't change that.

Either way, thank you for retracting your prior claim.

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

Sign here if you agree………………………

There. Ok now?

It has been. With that said, though, it seems like the more common claim is that it's very weak evidence, in and of itself, not that it has no value at all.

 

[Donn]

'love' .. It is exists anecdotally, or it doesn’t exist. The credibility of anecdotal evidence is thereby established to have an enormous precedent.

Depends on what you think love is.

Because 'love' is so fungible, it's a great way to seem to make a point and yet not have to.

 

[Nonpareil]

Demonstrable, for all practical purposes, involves the thing in question being distinguishable from other explanations, to start with, not simply detected, as it looks like you tried to shift the goalposts to by the end of your post.

I haven't shifted any goalposts. I have never denied that, to be demonstrable, something must be distinct from other phenomena. Again, that's my point.

Regardless, more than a few things have been detected in the past and incorrectly attributed to some seemingly more reasonable explanation at the time.

Which isn't relevant to the point I was making.

Moving on from that, if something, by its nature, has not been demonstrated and couldn't realistically be distinguished from other explanations that can be separately demonstrated, for whatever reason, it's not really demonstrable. This may, indeed, be because it doesn't exist or is not the case, however, conceptually, that's not at all the only reason why something may not be distinguishable from other explanations, hence why it's not by definition that it doesn't exist if it's not demonstrable.

Gravity leprechauns: invisible, undetectable leprechauns that rush around the universe moving everything that exists in such a way as to be indistinguishable from Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity does not exist. It's all gravity leprechauns.

But gravity leprechauns don't exist. Do you see my point yet?

In the case of your p-zombie example, you have part of a point. Indeed, there's not really any difference between a p-zombie and an "actual" consciousness for any practical purpose and where there might be a claimed difference, frankly, there's not really a basis for that claimed difference that cannot be easily shown to be special pleading. In that case, it is indeed reasonable to point out that the hypothetical is fundamentally fallacious.

The first problem that you actually run into here, though, is that you really didn't demonstrate that the hypothetical that I used is in any way fallacious or unreasonable to use.

Well, yes, I did. That was the entire point. Your hypothetical:

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.

The hypothetical universe, by definition, does not exist. It cannot be interacted with or detected in any way, even in theory.

Saying that we can't say there's no life in it is nonsensical. It's like saying we can't prove there isn't a janitor on the Death Star.

But I think I've found the issue. You say:

As a note, at no point did I say in the example that we could not find any evidence that it exists, nor that evidence could not be found if there was a magical way to travel to somewhere that it could.

"...we cannot interact with in any relevant way" suggests that evidence of it cannot exist.

But whatever. Talking past one another, not actually disagreeing. Glad to clear it up.

 

[Aridas]

I haven't shifted any goalposts. I have never denied that, to be demonstrable, something must be distinct from other phenomena. Again, that's my point.

You do realize that distinguishable and distinct mean two different things, right? And that they're sufficiently distinct from each other that this response isn't quite a proper reply to what you quoted?

Gravity leprechauns: invisible, undetectable leprechauns that rush around the universe moving everything that exists in such a way as to be indistinguishable from Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity does not exist. It's all gravity leprechauns.

But gravity leprechauns don't exist. Do you see my point yet?

I'm aware of what you're trying to say, but I have to disagree with your attempt on two points. First, to get to the meat of it, what's honest about claiming that a possibility that you cannot actually prove either way with any evidence is definitely not the case? You can certainly demonstrate that other explanations are more useful and remove it from consideration for practical purposes, but that is different than saying that it's not the case.

Second, this seems like a bad example from the start. Newtonian gravity wasn't quite the case, anyways, at last check, and your logic requires you to be claiming that mutually exclusive premises are both true.

But whatever. Talking past one another, not actually disagreeing. Glad to clear it up.

Indeed, then.

 

[Daylightstar]

... hence why it's not by definition that it doesn't exist if it's not demonstrable.
...

Can you give an example of something that exists but is not demonstrable (not: demonstrated to exist)?

 

[Aridas]

Can you give an example of something that exists but is not demonstrable (not: demonstrated to exist)?

Ignoring how bad this question is in the first place, I have to ask why? So you can try to troll badly again? Sorry, you don't get any more free passes.

 

[Dinwar]

First, to get to the meat of it, what's honest about claiming that a possibility that you cannot actually prove either way with any evidence is definitely not the case?

If there's no reason to believe something does exist, it's inherently dishonest to entertain the notion. Thus, without evidence for existence, we can dismiss the possibility. Perhaps in math it doesn't allow one to say something doesn't exist, but in every other context (including science) it's considered acceptable to do so.

No one entertains the notion that invisible garage dragons exist, because there's no evidence for them. We can conclude that they don't exist by that lack of data. Same logic applies to ESP, and to universes that don't interact with us in any way.

 

[Aridas]

Thus, without evidence for existence, we can dismiss the possibility.

As I had directly said, yet again, the possibilities that fit the description can be dismissed on practical grounds. Again, that's different from saying that it's definitely not the case.

 

[Daylightstar]

Ignoring how bad this question is in the first place, I have to ask why? So you can try to troll badly again? Sorry, you don't get any more free passes.

Does that mean that you are incapable of answering the question?

 

[annnnoid]

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.

You are quite clearly producing a strawman here.

I have consistently argued that anecdotes / personal observations / whatever-you-want-to-call-them are the foundation of a great deal of our personal and collective lives. Go look if you are going to challenge this.

It is everyone else (including you) who is constantly insisting that you can explain (away) these anecdotes (and utterly failing to).

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.

…so because it has been circumstantially (do you know what that word means?) established that in-some-cases memories are fallible and recollections can be ‘polluted’ (whatever that means)… it is scientifically valid to conclude that every single one of the hundreds of millions of reported cases can be thus dismissed.

This despite the indisputable fact that science actually has no ability to directly adjudicate the phenomenon (meaning…no more circumstantial BS).

Please find me a scientist who would agree with this absurd scenario!

Not to mention…that if you are going to insist that ALL these specific events (hundreds of millions of them) have thus been conclusively rendered invalid on this specific basis…you will have to then question every single memory that anyone ever has anytime.

If you are going to insist on such an assertion then you are going to have to back it up with a bit more than your opinion.

(snip)

…nice to see you’ve finally admitted that personal observations have evidentiary validity.

annnnoid isn't just willing to accept very low-quality evidence as proof--he's willing to destroy the entire scientific enterpirse to do so!

…stawman. I have, repeatedly and consistently, insisted that anecdotes (meaning…personal observations / descriptions / opinions…whatever-the-hell-you-or-anyone-else-wants-to-call-it-when-you-describe-your-experiences) have evidentiary value.

I never said they have unconditional evidentiary value (though in our everyday interactions this is very often exactly the case: we trust ourselves and each IOW). It was frequently, and consistently, asserted that anecdotes (or whatever-they-are-called) have NO evidentiary value.

The absurdity of this position cannot be overstated. Not least of all because a half-million practicing psychoanalysts would flat out dispute it.

Not to mention…that you have generated an opinion of me exclusively based on my own personal observations as presented on this thread. If these personal observations have NO evidentiary value (as so many have argued)…how is it you have come to the conclusions you have come to?

I actually did agree with you that anecdotal evidence can be reasonably considered evidence. That, in the larger picture, it's trumped by more objective evidence where available doesn't change that.

Either way, thank you for retracting your prior claim.

It has been. With that said, though, it seems like the more common claim is that it's very weak evidence, in and of itself, not that it has no value at all.

Well halleluiah! Someone else who agrees anecdotes (or whatever) have evidentiary value.

That has been the whole point of this stupid exercise. To establish some kind of probability that can be compared to the probability of alien life.

If we have hundreds of millions of ‘anecdotal’ reports of a phenomena, then this has some, possibly quantifiable, evidentiary value.

…unless someone can conclusively establish that there is some other kind of explanation for the phenomena (conclusively…you don’t dismiss hundreds of millions of events with circumstantial evidence).

So far, all we’ve got is assertions, conjecture, and hand waving.

Depends on what you think love is.

Because 'love' is so fungible, it's a great way to seem to make a point and yet not have to.

Nobody knows what ‘love’ is. Only extensively. Which…is…the…point (one of them anyway). Just cause we have some words that make some attempt to explain / describe it does not mean it is understood (it is trivially easy to establish that it is not, and cannot be with the current level of scientific undersanding). But (and this is a very important 'but'), that also does not mean it is not anecdotally understood (within our own personal observation / experience).

 

[Daylightstar]

As I had directly said, yet again, the possibilities that fit the description can be dismissed on practical grounds. Again, that's different from saying that it's definitely not the case.

What would you require to be able to say that ESP does not exist, ESP conclusively proven to be non existent?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I have consistently argued that anecdotes / personal observations / whatever-you-want-to-call-them are the foundation of a great deal of our personal and collective lives. Go look if you are going to challenge this.
...

They don't establish ESP as a reality. Only the belief in it is established with those anecdotes.
Nothing more.

 

[Aridas]

Does that mean that you are incapable of answering this question?

It means that I consider *you* to be unworthy of receiving an answer or discussing much with, based on the quality of your previous statements.

 

[Nonpareil]

You do realize that distinguishable and distinct mean two different things, right? And that they're sufficiently distinct from each other that this response isn't quite a proper reply to what you quoted?

Then perhaps you should explain how.

I'm aware of what you're trying to say, but I have to disagree with your attempt on two points. First, to get to the meat of it, what's honest about claiming that a possibility that you cannot actually prove either way with any evidence is definitely not the case?

What is honest about claiming that gravity leprechauns might be the true explanation?

Again, we're getting back to the issue of definitions. By any functional definition of "exist", we know that gravity leprechauns do not exist. To repeat: we know gravity leprechauns do not exist. The fact that they are by definition undetectable means that there is literally no difference between them and any other imaginary entity - which means that claiming that they are real is incoherent.

You can certainly demonstrate that other explanations are more useful and remove it from consideration for practical purposes, but that is different than saying that it's not the case.

Not if you have any actual functional definition of "is".

If you cannot, even in theory, show that something is true, it is false. That's what false means.

Second, this seems like a bad example from the start. Newtonian gravity wasn't quite the case, anyways, at last check, and your logic requires you to be claiming that mutually exclusive premises are both true.

No. No, it doesn't.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not unless the author is psychic.

ahhh , I see. OTOH he discusses both Honorton and Utts.