Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Aepervius]

We have attempted to make this point multiple times, adding in ghosts, Nessie, Bigfoot, and any number of other things.

It has yet to sink in.

It is difficult to sink anything into solidified belief. You have got to ahve something more "malleable".

 

[jaydeehess]

Just caught part of an episode of "Through the Worm Hole" on TV. It concerned the question "do we have a sixth sense".
One experiment designed to test for precognition had a subject look at randomized pictures while the brain activity was monitored. Some images were neutral while others were designed to elicit an emotional response.
One example of a brain activity chart was shown in which the subject's emotional response ramps up 5 seconds before the emotion generating image appears. This was touted as evidence that the person had some indication of the future.
Poppycock!
The subject knew some images were benign and some were emotional, and had now seen several benign images in a row. Even though the pictures are randomized the subject would now be anticipating an emotion generating picture and was reacting to that. This is no different than someone about to get a vaccination or have bold drawn for a test and anticipating the needle poke pain. I am quite sire their brain activity would ramp up well before the needle touches skin.

So, in a meta-analysis the above experiment would be regarded as indicative of an ESP, but, imho, its not.

 

[John Jones]

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



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.

Exactly.

 

[Aepervius]

I think of this as the open door argument: You cannot conclusively prove that a door is closed, it may be *slightly* open. Therefore all doors are slightly open. Therefore all doors are wide open at all times.

Does this means his theory is ajar ?

 

[John Jones]

…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.




…except hundreds of millions of reports of the phenomena

. But that’s irrelevant.




[...]

What a great example of an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy! You have outdone yourself, Annnoid.

 

[Donn]

Does this means his theory is ajar ?

Ja, Jarringly!

 

[Dinwar]

It would have been a better analogy to be, "Is Bigfoot more Probable than ESP?"

Gee, math and stats are cool when they live in fantasyland, arguing over the probability of two fictional things. This is the "Science, ..." subforum?

Extraterrestrial life isn't impossible, so it's possible to have a meaningful discussion on how to figure out the probability of existence. It's useful in as much as it allows one to spot gaps in our understanding, which allows us to focus our research.

ESP is just fiction, pure and simple.

Okay. Let's hear your idea. Describe the experiment to test the hypothesis being tested in the ganzfeld studies.

I already have. The fact that you missed it is not my problem.

 

[jt512]

I already have. The fact that you missed it is not my problem.

I have read every post you have made in this thread, and I have seen no description of such a definitive study. Could you please post the number of the post in which you described this study.

 

[Aridas]

No, I don't. I have no idea what you are getting this from. Again, I am stating definitions.

You really, really aren't. Still, let's go back to the beginning of this and take a look at what's actually been happening.

A suitable analogy would be bringing up the Observer effect. The original statement in question was, in short, just like saying that it is impossible to know both the exact location and velocity of an electron at the same time, with the exact why left unstated because it really didn't need to be stated. Namely, it was about what we can know/do. 'We' of course, referring to all observers bound by reality's rules. Your response, in comparison, could be taken in two ways. The first was like saying that 'if the electron doesn't have a position and velocity, it doesn't exist.' In other words, you would be stating a trivial and entirely irrelevant truth. Of course the electron has a position and velocity and that was never in question in the first place, just like of course a thing that exists is detectable and demonstrable, if you ignore everything that would prevent such from being doable.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for civility and attacking the arguer. Please review your membership agreement, especially rule 0 and rule 12.

Now, with that said, demonstrable is still not part of the requirements for existing, even at the trivial truth level. Existing is certainly part of the requirements for something being demonstrable, though. This goes back to the objection I had with distinct, but not distinguishable. Demonstrable and distinguishable are fundamentally actions. If there's some reason rooted in how reality works that they cannot actually be done other than that whatever it is doesn't exist, and conceptually, there certainly are reasons that would suffice, then they can't be done, but the thing in question could still exist. This is opposed to distinct, which, like existence, refers to a state of being, rather than an action.

No.

This would point to the first of the two, then.

I have not invoked magic at any point.

If not, you've merely been fighting an entirely irrelevant battle.

Again, you are failing to appreciate the difference between practical and theoretical availability.

Nope. Your version of theoretical is irrelevant to what was being said in the first place, by the look of it, though.

It isn't about usefulness. Usefulness is a useful side-effect. It is about having a meaningful definition of the word "real".

Heh. No. It really is all about practical results and ways that can help get practical results, when you get down to what's actually happening. That's really what distinguishes it. "A meaningful definition of the word 'real'" is nothing more than a convenient and entirely superfluous bit of philosophy that some people try to add.

And you are again equivocating between practical and theoretical limitations. If that information cannot be gathered by any means, then it does not exist. That is what existing means.

Only if you're including magic that breaks reality, which cannot exist, even in principle, which renders your argument worthless from the start on the topic in question.

Something that is not true is false. That is what false means.

And the question was about whether it could be known to be true or false, not which one it actually is.

The chain of logic is the simple observation that "X exists" is an invalid statement, because X does not meet the criteria for existence.

Except that nothing you put actually made it an invalid statement internally. The closest you came was claiming that it was undetectable. The place to go from there is "Why is it undetectable?" If the answer to that was stated, maybe it could be shown to be invalid, depending on the answer, but not necessarily. You did not state such, though, therefore X exists is not an invalid statement, as it was made.

 

[Nonpareil]

A suitable analogy would be bringing up the Observer effect. The original statement in question was, in short, just like saying that it is impossible to know both the exact location and velocity of an electron at the same time, with the exact why left unstated because it really didn't need to be stated. Namely, it was about what we can know/do. 'We' of course, referring to all observers bound by reality's rules. Your response, in comparison, could be taken in two ways. The first was like saying that 'if the electron doesn't have a position and velocity, it doesn't exist.' In other words, you would be stating a trivial and entirely irrelevant truth.

Trivial, yes. Irrelevant, no.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content and response to same.

The second way to take it would be as 'if we can't know what the exact position and velocity of the electron are, it doesn't exist.' This is a claim about what existing means in the first place that mixes up subjective and objective.

This is not actually a separate way from the first. It is, rather, a follow-up to it.

The electron must have both position and velocity. If that position and-slash-or velocity cannot be known, ever, no matter how fine the measurements taken, then by definition it does not have them (because, if we can't detect the electron in any way, there is no electron).

And no, the observer effect (by which you probably meant the uncertainty principle, but whatever) does not actually change this. Position and velocity are difficult to measure simultaneously at such small scales because one is a measure of a change in the other over time. It is not that such values do not exist; it is that their means of measurement are incompatible, as one relies on taking a measurement at one instant and another over time.

Now, with that said, demonstrable is still not part of the requirements for existing, even at the trivial truth level. Existing is certainly part of the requirements for something being demonstrable, though.

Demonstrable (or, again, at least demonstrable in theory) is very much part of the requirements for existing, at the trivial level and every other. All things that are demonstrable exist; all things that exist are demonstrable. If they are not demonstrable, then they have no effect on the rest of the universe - and if they have no effect on the rest of the universe, then they do not exist.

Heh. No. It really is all about practical results and ways that can help get practical results, when you get down to what's actually happening. That's really what distinguishes it. "A meaningful definition of the word 'real'" is nothing more than a convenient and entirely superfluous bit of philosophy that some people try to add.

It really isn't.

There is no meaningful definition of the word "real" which allows things with no actual effect on the universe to exist. As a result of this, things which exist are necessarily detectable. If they are not, there is no difference between saying that they exist and that they don't - which means they don't.

And the question was about whether it could be known to be true or false, not which one it actually is.

If it can't be shown to be true, it is false.

That is what false means.

 

[tsig]

You really, really aren't. Still, let's go back to the beginning of this and take a look at what's actually been happening.

A suitable analogy would be bringing up the Observer effect. The original statement in question was, in short, just like saying that it is impossible to know both the exact location and velocity of an electron at the same time, with the exact why left unstated because it really didn't need to be stated. Namely, it was about what we can know/do. 'We' of course, referring to all observers bound by reality's rules. Your response, in comparison, could be taken in two ways. The first was like saying that 'if the electron doesn't have a position and velocity, it doesn't exist.' In other words, you would be stating a trivial and entirely irrelevant truth. Of course the electron has a position and velocity and that was never in question in the first place, just like of course a thing that exists is detectable and demonstrable, if you ignore everything that would prevent such from being doable.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content.

Now, with that said, demonstrable is still not part of the requirements for existing, even at the trivial truth level. Existing is certainly part of the requirements for something being demonstrable, though. This goes back to the objection I had with distinct, but not distinguishable. Demonstrable and distinguishable are fundamentally actions. If there's some reason rooted in how reality works that they cannot actually be done other than that whatever it is doesn't exist, and conceptually, there certainly are reasons that would suffice, then they can't be done, but the thing in question could still exist. This is opposed to distinct, which, like existence, refers to a state of being, rather than an action.




This would point to the first of the two, then.



If not, you've merely been fighting an entirely irrelevant battle.

Nope. Your version of theoretical is irrelevant to what was being said in the first place, by the look of it, though.



Heh. No. It really is all about practical results and ways that can help get practical results, when you get down to what's actually happening. That's really what distinguishes it. "A meaningful definition of the word 'real'" is nothing more than a convenient and entirely superfluous bit of philosophy that some people try to add.



Only if you're including magic that breaks reality, which cannot exist, even in principle, which renders your argument worthless from the start on the topic in question.



And the question was about whether it could be known to be true or false, not which one it actually is.



Except that nothing you put actually made it an invalid statement internally. The closest you came was claiming that it was undetectable. The place to go from there is "Why is it undetectable?" If the answer to that was stated, maybe it could be shown to be invalid, depending on the answer, but not necessarily. You did not state such, though, therefore X exists is not an invalid statement, as it was made.

This is all irrelevant.

 

[Daylightstar]

This is all irrelevant.

That was my initial reaction as well. It all seems to boil down to a reversal of burden of proof ..... if it can not be shown to not exist, it (might) exist(s), or as the author of such proclaims:

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

Which leads me back to my question in response to the above quoted statement:
Aridas,

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

 

[Fudbucker]

Trivial, yes. Irrelevant, no.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove response to moderated content.

This is not actually a separate way from the first. It is, rather, a follow-up to it.

The electron must have both position and velocity. If that position and-slash-or velocity cannot be known, ever, no matter how fine the measurements taken, then by definition it does not have them (because, if we can't detect the electron in any way, there is no electron).

And no, the observer effect (by which you probably meant the uncertainty principle, but whatever) does not actually change this. Position and velocity are difficult to measure simultaneously at such small scales because one is a measure of a change in the other over time. It is not that such values do not exist; it is that their means of measurement are incompatible, as one relies on taking a measurement at one instant and another over time.



Demonstrable (or, again, at least demonstrable in theory) is very much part of the requirements for existing, at the trivial level and every other. All things that are demonstrable exist; all things that exist are demonstrable. If they are not demonstrable, then they have no effect on the rest of the universe - and if they have no effect on the rest of the universe, then they do not exist.



It really isn't.

There is no meaningful definition of the word "real" which allows things with no actual effect on the universe to exist. As a result of this, things which exist are necessarily detectable. If they are not, there is no difference between saying that they exist and that they don't - which means they don't.



If it can't be shown to be true, it is false.

That is what false means.

No, false means "not true". You have this idea that false means "incapable of being shown to be true".

You're conflating epistemology with ontology. Plenty of internal mental states, for example, "can't be shown to be true". I can't give you proof (or show to be true) that I sometimes have auditory hallucinations. If I tell you I do, you simply have to take my word for it. Yet, you can't determine from my inability to provide proof of my auditory hallucinations means it's false that I sometimes have auditory hallucinations. No doctor would reason like that.

 

[Nonpareil]

No, false means "not true". You have this idea that false means "incapable of being shown to be true".

If it can't be shown to be true, it's false, yes. Because, if it is true, you have to be able to show it.

You're conflating epistemology with ontology.

Really not.

Plenty of internal mental states, for example, "can't be shown to be true". I can't give you proof (or show to be true) that I sometimes have auditory hallucinations.

Yes, you can.

 

[Darat]

No, false means "not true". You have this idea that false means "incapable of being shown to be true".

You're conflating epistemology with ontology. Plenty of internal mental states, for example, "can't be shown to be true". I can't give you proof (or show to be true) that I sometimes have auditory hallucinations. If I tell you I do, you simply have to take my word for it. Yet, you can't determine from my inability to provide proof of my auditory hallucinations means it's false that I sometimes have auditory hallucinations. No doctor would reason like that.

Again you are arguing from ignorance, it is *now* possible to prove you are having auditory hallucinations.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Again you are arguing from ignorance, it is *now* possible to prove you are having auditory hallucinations.

Could you speak up? I can't quite hear you.

 

[Agatha]

None of you needs either ESP or information from alien life to recognise that the Membership Agreement must be followed when posting here. Please remain civil and polite (rule 0), stay on topic (rule 11) and address the argument and not the arguer (rule 12). Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[jaydeehess]

If it can't be shown to be true, it's false, yes. Because, if it is true, you have to be able to show it.

I have to side with Fudbucker on this. There are many situations in which the inability to prove "true" does not equate to proving false.

Yes, you can.

I am interested. How does one prove that another person is experiencing occasional auditory hallucinations? I suffer from tinnitus but have never had a doctor do any test to prove the veracity of my complaint.

 

[Darat]

....snip...

I am interested. How does one prove that another person is experiencing occasional auditory hallucinations? I suffer from tinnitus but have never had a doctor do any test to prove the veracity of my complaint.

Brain activity scans, plus of course - they tell us they are!

 

[Nonpareil]

I have to side with Fudbucker on this. There are many situations in which the inability to prove "true" does not equate to proving false.

Again, I have to point out that I am talking about the impossibility of being proven true, not the impracticality.

I am interested. How does one prove that another person is experiencing occasional auditory hallucinations? I suffer from tinnitus but have never had a doctor do any test to prove the veracity of my complaint.

Anomalous patterns of brain activity. I am not a doctor, but this might be a good place to start looking for more information.