Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[jaydeehess]

I do admit to not noticing the difference in time between the meta-analysis that jt spoke of and the critique I linked to.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Now if you pretend that your phenomenon has NO particle itnerracting and has action at DISTANCE without interractin, then yes, physic states it is impossible.

The woos 'have that covered': EnTanGleMenT

 

[Nonpareil]

Is it possible to conclusively establish:

…that a human brain / mind can generate psi events?
…that a human brain / mind cannot generate psi events?
…precisely what a human brain / mind is capable of generating?

Possible? Entirely. Have we necessarily done this? No.

But there is still a grand total of no evidence for psi.

Physics does not say psi is impossible

For the same reason that it does not technically rule out the possibility of magic.

(which is at least one reason why having a theoretical physicist study the issue is useful...which, not surprisingly, resolves yet another one of Dinwars criticisms...oh well)

A pair of college students writing blog posts is not equal to a theoretical physicist doing intensive research, annnnoid.

In the same way, observation does not equal anecdotes, anecdotes do not equal evidence, refusal to indulge your double standard does not equal hand-waving, and so on.

it just cannot explain it (just like it cannot explain a lot of things, including the existence of physics).

There is nothing to explain. Psi lacks even a coherent definition, let alone supporting evidence.

 

[Daylightstar]

... (which is at least one reason why having a theoretical physicist study the issue is useful... ...

How does such an unnamed theoretical physicist study the issue of ESP, if he doesn't have valid data?

 

[Dinwar]

Physics does not say psi is impossible

You aren't familiar with morphospace, are you? You can have all the theoretical physicists you want--they will NEVER figure out why bivalves don't utilize all potential shell morphologies. It's a biological question, not a physics question.

Biology cannot violate physics, but that in no way means that physicists are experts in biology. Psychology cannot violate physics or biology, but that in no way means that either is an expert in psychology.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
There is nothing to explain. ...

Except for the psychology behind it, of course, but that has been done already.

 

[jaydeehess]

Possible? Entirely. Have we necessarily done this? No.

.

I note that once again the spectre of possible/impossible , or conclusivly proven/no freaking way, has reared up in this thread.
The OP concerns the relative probability of two phenomena both of which may be granted as possible, or not strictly impossible if one prefers.

What we are confronted with is, whether or not ESP in any of its myriad forms, has been shown to probably exist, as understood by a consensus of relevant experts, versus the necessarily accepted consensus that this universe is capable of producing a region in which the development of advanced life forms has occurred.

So it comes down to the probability of those advanced life conditions being a one-of-a-kind in the universe, versus the probability that a much disputed phenomena.

 

[jt512]

What? I may be wrong but did you not bring up Utts yourself?

I mentioned her name, because that's how one refers to a journal article: authors' names and year of publication.

 

[jt512]

I did. Doesn't change my analysis.

Then your "analysis" is idiotic. You quote one sentence, in which I state a type of evidence that I don't find convincing, and claim that it implies that I haven't thought about what it would take to convince me I'm wrong; and then you fail to quote the very next two sentences, in which I spell out EXACTLY what it would take to convince me I'm wrong.

Sometimes to understand someone's position, you need to put more than thirty seconds' though into it.

I'll keep that in mind in case some day you post something worth more than 30 seconds of my time.

 

[Nonpareil]

I note that once again the spectre of possible/impossible , or conclusivly proven/no freaking way, has reared up in this thread.

Yes. Again, this is annnnoid's modus operandi. He demands absolutely "conclusive" proof against any of his pet theories, but in the same breath says that, since no such proof exists, even such flimsy "evidence" as anecdotes must be admitted in its favor.

Of course this is nonsense. Burden of proof aside, there is no evidence that would "conclusively" disprove such things in his eyes. No matter how many negative results are shown, no matter how many accounts are shown to be baseless, and no matter how absolutely perfectly the capabilities of the human brain are charted, he will continue to hide behind "but that's not conclusive".

Because, ultimately, that is the core of his thinking. All the other fallacies are just window dressing for the one at the center of it all: god of the gaps. So long as it isn't conclusively disproven, he asserts, we must admit its possibility - and if we must admit its possibility, we must admit all these anecdotes as evidence.

That's all his arguments are, really. That's all they've ever been. God of the gaps, again and again, applied first to consciousness, then NDEs, and now ESP.

Unfortunately for his arguments, you don't get points for consistency if you are consistently fallacious.

 

[jt512]

We're dealing with a biological system. There's plenty for a biologist to do. For example, if a physicist comes up with an idea for how it could work that violates principles of biology, the biologist can step in and say "Slow down there, sparky".

If physicists determine that ESP is possible, biologists are going to have to go back to the drawing board.

 

[jaydeehess]

I mentioned her name, because that's how one refers to a journal article: authors' names and year of publication.

Perhaps you need to ptetend I am really clueless as to what your beef is about what I posted and explain it in full detail.


Please

 

[Dinwar]

Then your "analysis" is idiotic.

Gee, it's nice to know we can have an intelligent discussion without resorting to petty insults.

I'm an advocate of Strong Inference. That is enough for you to Google and figure out where your error lies.

If physicists determine that ESP is possible, biologists are going to have to go back to the drawing board.

It certainly would be interesting. However, the inverse holds true as well--and biologists will be able to give a MUCH clearer picture of how it works. Physicists can say "Yeah, there's something. Somehow. Dunno how." Biologists can say "Something right here has something to do with it. This part does x, y, and z. Obviously, x, y, or z are involved in it."

…is it really necessary to remind you that YOU (among others) have repeatedly insisted that psi could not happen because (among other reasons) it violates the known laws of physics.

...so tell me again hows it's not a physics question!

It involves an animal. Specifically, humans. That it violates everything we know about physics isn't irrelevant, but a knowledge of physics is insufficient to demonstrate the precise methods of how it works.

Unless you are comfortable with the notion that a physicist can perform surgery, my point is rather self-evident. Denying it is rather futile and merely avoiding the reality that your position is untenable.

Not that any of this has any relevance to this discussion. You STILL haven't provided a good-faith effort to demonstrate those hundreds of millions of anecdotes have any valid data, despite ample time and me providing you with step-by-step instructions for 99% of the process. You can't. You have no data, and therefore everything you've been saying is nothing but fantasy.

 

[jt512]

Perhaps you need to ptetend I am really clueless as to what your beef is about what I posted and explain it in full detail.

I don't have any beef with it, but I don't understand why you thought it was relevant that Utts and Honorton were mentioned in the article.

 

[jt512]

Gee, it's nice to know we can have an intelligent discussion without resorting to petty insults.

Fair enough. I apologize.

I'm an advocate of Strong Inference. That is enough for you to Google and figure out where your error lies.

I google it every time you mention it. I don't even see how the concept is even applicable to me, since I'm not the one designing the experiments. I have to go on the evidence that other people generate, and there is no evidence that parapsychologists can generate that would convince me that they didn't mess up the experiments. They are already performing experiments using protocols that should produce convincing evidence for or against the hypothesis. And they more-or-less consistently yield evidence in favor of ESP. But I don't believe it, because no matter how airtight those protocols appear on paper, it is overwhelmingly more likely that they are violating those protocols and producing biased results than it is that ESP is real. That's why I said that if investigators hostile to the hypothesis were to start getting consistent results I'd at least start paying attention. But even that wouldn't be convincing, because, according to theoretical physicists, ESP cannot exist, given the standard model of particle physics. So unless physicists adopt a model that allows for ESP, there is really no experimental evidence that could convince me ESP is true. For me to be convinced that ESP is real would require (1) physicists adopting a model that allows for the phenomenon and (2) a body of well-controlled experiments conducted by disinterested investigators supporting it.

Physicists can say "Yeah, there's something. Somehow. Dunno how."

No. Physicists are not going to say "yeah, there's something. Somehow. Dunno how." Physicists are not going to believe there is something until they can figure out the how. ESP would overturn physics almost in its entirety. It would require a new model of everything at our most fundamental levels of understanding.

 

[Dinwar]

I google it every time you mention it. I don't even see how the concept is even applicable to me, since I'm not the one designing the experiments.

You said there's no experimental evidence that would convince you. That is in violation of the principles guiding Strong Inference.

That there's no CURRENT experiments that are convincing is extremely evident from this thread, and if that's what you meant I will certainly agree. What I disagree with is the concept that there's no possible experiment that could, in theory, convince you--if THAT'S the case, you're starting with a firm conclusion and matching the evidence to that conclusion, which is wrong.

No. Physicists are not going to say "yeah, there's something. Somehow. Dunno how." Physicists are not going to believe there is something until they can figure out the how.

Again, we are dealing with animals. The "how" question is going to require a level of knowledge of the animal in question that physicists simply cannot be expected to have. Unless this has something to do with something other than biology, in which case NO ONE has ANY expertise in the are and any scientist is as good as any other, because we're so far from anything resembling our current understanding of the universe that our divisions of the fields of science will inevitably break down upon further examination.

Either way, physicists won't have any better chance of understanding it than a biologists, and in the first scenario they'll have a worse chance.

 

[annnnoid]

It involves an animal. Specifically, humans. That it violates everything we know about physics isn't irrelevant, but a knowledge of physics is insufficient to demonstrate the precise methods of how it works.

Unless you are comfortable with the notion that a physicist can perform surgery, my point is rather self-evident. Denying it is rather futile and merely avoiding the reality that your position is untenable.

Not that any of this has any relevance to this discussion. You STILL haven't provided a good-faith effort to demonstrate those hundreds of millions of anecdotes have any valid data, despite ample time and me providing you with step-by-step instructions for 99% of the process. You can't. You have no data, and therefore everything you've been saying is nothing but fantasy.

…y’know I can’t help but find this absolutely hilarious. Here you are, an accredited scientist, insisting that hundreds of millions of data points specifically relating to a very narrow issue represent absolutely nothing!

…quite obviously they do not, and cannot, represent ‘no data’.

How do we know this?

The very evidence YOU presented unconditionally confirms it.

These very same statistics represent the ‘data’ that those very studies use to come to the conclusions they come to. It either means something, or it means nothing. If it all means nothing…as you and the rest keep insisting then those papers you presented would have had ‘no data’ to work with (why go to all the trouble of writing a scientific paper about...nothing????).

Those studies you presented (and the one Pixel42 presented) explicitly refer to the data (the personal observations / reports / experiences / anecdotes) that all of you keep arguing has absolutely no value or validity.

Thus…there IS data and it DOES have some evidentiary value.

The only question to be answered now is…what is that evidentiary value. If you read my previous post, the results that Pixel42 foolishly presented will give you some idea of what you can expect.

Studies that do absolutely no more than (and CAN do absolutely no more than) SUGGEST that SOME of the reports MAY (or may not) be explained by your vague conclusions.

I mean…could you get a more feeble scientific conclusion than ‘suggest some may’? It’s not even ‘established some may’…or ‘suggest all may’…or ‘ suggest some are’…. but it’s enough for all of you to insist the matter is conclusively resolved. So much for scientific rigor!

Expect to have this position unconditionally confirmed by all the other authors shortly.

Thus…all of your CLAIMS …will have been established to be nothing more than conditional explanations. Very…conditional…explanations (“suggest some may’…as opposed to ‘establish all are’….there’s a very big difference).

Since it is indisputable that personal subjective experience takes evidentiary priority (I’m going to assume you at least know what that means)…
…and since the anecdotal / personal observation / whatever-you-want-to-call-them reports (by the admission of your own studies) DO have evidentiary value (or your studies would not use them as data points)…
…and since the studies you presented can offer nothing but very conditional explanations (as Pixel42’s post very clearly establishes and as upcoming quotes from the authors of those same studies will conclusively establish)…

…we are now within spitting distance of finally establishing that psi phenomenon may very well have a probability above that of alien life.

NOTE TO THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO INSIST THAT I HAVEN’T PROOVED ANYTHING!

I…DON’T …NEED….TO….PROVE….ANYTHING!

I have hundreds of millions of data points that your own studies confirm as representing some form of valid data.

I have the indisputable fact that subjective experience takes evidentiary priority.

What you need to remind yourself of is that science does not represent the primary epistemology in this world. The vast majority of the worlds population (and even most scientists) get by quite successfully without it (which is why, IRL, everyone [including you] unconditionally depends on anecdotal evidence).

These points by themselves add up to sufficient data to establish some manner of quantifiable probability for psi.

Your own explanations explain nothing. They are guesses. Nothing more. You are the ones who are claiming to be able to resolve the issue with these explanations. I can establish that your explanations resolve nothing. The authors of the studies will confirm this…

…and the submission by Pixel42 already has.

 

[jaydeehess]

Agreeing with some of the criticisms, the original authors, joined by statistician Jessica Utts, published a rejoinder and reanalysis [Storm et al (2013)]. The original analysis is here; the critique and rejoinder, here (in reversed order).

If Utts's statistical analysis is somehow important then its relevant to see critiques of her work in the area, by a psychology expert.

Still missing where the ad hominem is though.

 

[jt512]

You said there's no experimental evidence that would convince you. That is in violation of the principles guiding Strong Inference.

You may want to think about whether the principles guiding strong inference always apply in practice.

What I disagree with is the concept that there's no possible experiment that could, in theory, convince you--if THAT'S the case, you're starting with a firm conclusion and matching the evidence to that conclusion, which is wrong.

There is no one experiment that could prove that ESP exists, and if strong inference says there must be, then strong inference is ********. And if strong inference says that there are experiments that should convince us of something in violation of physics, then strong inference is ********.

In principle, there is a program of experiments that could convince me of ESP. Such a program of experiments would have to first convince the theoretical physics community to adopt a model that would permit ESP to exist, and then to establish empirically by disinterested investigators using well-controlled experiments that information is communicated by a mechanism allowed by that model. And if strong inference says that such criteria are inappropriate then strong inference is ********.

What experimental evidence in accordance with strong inference would convince you that ESP exists?

 

[jt512]

If Utts's statistical analysis is somehow important then its relevant to see critiques of her work in the area, by a psychology expert.

You want a psychologist to critique statistics performed by a statistician? Oy, is that ever backwards.