Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Daylightstar]

...
ETA: The possibilities I pointed out are "possibles" because they can't properly be declared completely impossible. Basically, they're staying at a null position because the arguments against them being possible aren't sufficiently strong to declare them 100% impossible. Moving them to impossible, or, for that matter, to something worth being considered probable both take positive claims.
...

And so the narrative changes.
Also, it's an extremely ambiguous narrative:
-It's neither this nor that.
-It is not possible but can not be written off.
-It's not yes, but it's also not no.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim, does it not? For your argument to be relevant, you have to be claiming that said scenarios are impossible. Go ahead, back up your claim.
...

^{Hilie by Daylighstar}Which claim? The one you invented? What you call my claim is actually me stating that you have not supported your claim of some 'possibles' existing for the actual occurrence of ESP.

...
Actually, we don't really know that your 'possibles' actually are possibles, you appear to simply define them as such. ...

You simply have not fulfilled your burden of proof for your claim for 'possibles' regarding the actual occurrence of ESP.

...
Feel free to try to point out where?
...

Right here:

...

..., given the inherent limitations of the knowledge currently available to us, those things should be ² indisputedly "possible." ...

special pleading².
...

^{"2" in superscript in quote added by Daylightstar}You're asking for special consideration without justification for "those things" to be accepted as possible.
And here:

... As I already described, though, some possibilities circumvent science entirely. ...

...
...
Problematic? No. Unidentified? You really like freely ignoring important things whenever you feel like it, eh? But hey, if that link is where you're trying to take this back to, there's no point in continuing discussion with you, given that you've demonstrated that it's an utter waste of time. If you're not going to pay attention to what's actually being said and respond to it on its own merits, you're continuing to act as dishonestly as people like William Lane Craig.
...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}You are quite correct, the link is not correct, although it points to the 'source' of your claim. Good catch, thanks a lot.
Here's a better link with those claimed entities:

Seriously? A few should honestly be immediately apparent to anyone with even a passing understanding of the subject. An easy set of examples are the deceptive god ones. The FSM could be actively altering the results that scientists (and non-scientists) obtain to give a coherent, but wrong understanding of how reality works. ...

^{Hilites by Daylightstar}The FSM being the Flying Spaghetty Monster:

...
You know not of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ...

...
Esoteric? ...
...

Yes, esoteric. That big fuzzy cloud of words which you think makes stuff possible.

... that big, big fuzzy cloud of words in which everything is possible and everything can be made to fit. ...

...
Given that at no point have I claimed, supported, or otherwise been a proponent for ESP and have repeatedly pointed out that it's not a reasonable thing to accept as the case? This is you just being a troll.
...

However, you claim there are remaining 'possibles' for the actual occurrence of ESP.
You have not provided valid support for that claim.

...
This, in particular.

Given that the context wasn't even remotely as you're trying to claim, it ends up as an attack on the proper acknowledgement of context.
...

Ah yes, that what you call context is indeed that big fuzzy cloud of words in which everything is possible and everything can be made to fit.
It's not an 'attack' on "context" but rather an 'attack' on the way you use the word.

...
A bit more seriously, it's a bit of a humorous way to acknowledge the possibilities as exactly what they are. Possibilities that we have no reason to take seriously for any practical purposes, though they may indeed be internally coherent and flawlessly describe the available data.
...

Except, this can not be demonstrated by you to be so. You're being esoteric.

Anyway, after all this, the probability for the OP's ESP has not increased. All we have is what looks like a rather desperate attempt to grasp at a straw.

Sadly, there are some possibles involved that can't even conceptually be removed via science, so your last "possible" statement is in error. What science actually has done is demonstrate far beyond current reasonable doubt that it's not the case.

No such straw has been shown by you to actually exist.

 

[Aridas]

Yes, esoteric. That big fuzzy cloud of words which you think makes stuff possible.

Well, you really can't be anything except a troll after stuff like this.

And so the narrative changes.
Also, it's an extremely ambiguous narrative:
-It's neither this nor that.
-It is not possible but can not be written off.
-It's not yes, but it's also not no.

And this.

The narrative never changed. That it's been more complex from the start than you wish it was seems obvious, though. It's not ambiguous, either, just like the effect of time on proper word choice can be a little complex, but it's really not ambiguous. None of those suggestions match what I actually said, either.

And that's before seriously touching that last post. Maybe try again with any valid arguments in the first place and without the constant trolling? Otherwise, I'm done with you in this thread.

 

[Daylightstar]

Yes, esoteric. That big fuzzy cloud of words which you think makes stuff possible.

Well, you really can't be anything except a troll after stuff like this.
...

Well, that's what you offer as your 'context'.

...
The narrative never changed. ...

You're quite right, your narrative was always the same; effectively grasping at a non evidenced straw through special pleading.

...
That it's been more complex from the start than you wish it was seems obvious, though. It's not ambiguous, either, just like the effect of time on proper word choice can be a little complex, but it's really not ambiguous. None of those suggestions match what I actually said, either.

And that's before seriously touching that last post. Maybe try again with any valid arguments in the first place and without the constant trolling? Otherwise, I'm done with you in this thread.

Yes, it's quite ambiguous.
I know you see it as much more complex, that is your context.

However, the probability for the OP's ESP has not improved with your context.


E.T.A.: By the way, your emotional additives leave me stone cold. Just so you know

 

[EHocking]

Well, you do need to include the error bars. I make out the probability of ESP existing to be 0.00 +/- 5%.

Seems only fair.

I'd like to see the working that established the 5% error.

There is a thread here that "determines" that the probability of the PGF being a fake is 0.00005, but that calculation relies heavily on Bigfoot Science^[TM] and no actual maths.


ETA : Do I need one of these? ; )

 

[Daylightstar]

...
ETA: The possibilities I pointed out are "possibles" because they can't properly be declared completely impossible. Basically, they're staying at a null position because the arguments against them being possible aren't sufficiently strong to declare them 100% impossible. Moving them to impossible, or, for that matter, to something worth being considered probable both take positive claims.
...

And so the narrative changes.
...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

...

...
The narrative never changed. ...

You're quite right, your narrative was always the same; ...

However, in your ETA quoted above, we can see that your 'context' really is based on a reversal of burden of proof.
It's a pretty weak argument for the probabilities for the OP's ESP vs Advanced alien life.

As I said, your 'context' does not improve the probabilities of the OP's ESP.

 

[Aridas]

For the sake of the peanut gallery members who haven't been paying attention, alone.

The context of my latest statements, as Daylightstar had been so kind to point out himself, was that they were in response to Darat's statements-

We have now fully explored the scales at which "classic" ESP would have to interact and there is simply no longer a gap in which we could squeeze in a last "possible".

where he is claiming that there are no "possibles" left. Nothing to do with probabilities in the first place. I disagree for several reasons, some of which have I pointed out. Given that the subject was "possibles," I dealt in "possibles." What little mention of probability I inserted was standard procedure here given the ease with which certain posters love to try to conflate the two and jump to conclusions regarding whether one supports something if they even acknowledge the possibility.

Meanwhile, Daylightstar -

However, in your ETA quoted above, we can see that your 'context' really is based on a reversal of burden of proof.
It's a pretty weak argument for the probabilities for the OP's ESP vs Advanced alien life.

As I said, your 'context' does not improve the probabilities of the OP's ESP.

has been yammering on about probabilities, repeatedly creating straw men regarding how I'm somehow actually talking about probabilities and the title question, not possibilities and Darat's statement, despite context establishing that to be the case rather overwhelmingly, and generally throwing around fallacies all over the place.

 

[Daylightstar]

For the sake of the peanut gallery members who haven't been paying attention, alone.

The context of my latest statements, as Daylightstar had been so kind to point out himself, was that they were in response to Darat's statements-



where he is claiming that there are no "possibles" left. Nothing to do with probabilities in the first place. I disagree for several reasons, some of which have I pointed out. Given that the subject was "possibles," I dealt in "possibles." What little mention of probability I inserted was standard procedure here given the ease with which certain posters love to try to conflate the two and jump to conclusions regarding whether one supports something if they even acknowledge the possibility.
...

Yes, that was based on a reversal*^{See also below} of the burden of proof with respect to your deceptive gods and your flying spaghetti monster.
According to you they are equally not disproven* to exist, to which you attach some non specific esoteric context 'making them' (including the OP's ESP) what you call, a 'possible'.

...
Meanwhile, Daylightstar -

However, in your ETA quoted above, we can see that your 'context' really is based on a reversal of burden of proof.
It's a pretty weak argument for the probabilities for the OP's ESP vs Advanced alien life.

As I said, your 'context' does not improve the probabilities of the OP's ESP.

has been yammering on about probabilities, repeatedly creating straw men regarding how I'm somehow actually talking about probabilities and the title question, not possibilities and Darat's statement, despite context establishing that to be the case rather overwhelmingly, and generally throwing around fallacies all over the place.

If something (the OP's ESP in this case) being possible ('a possible') has according to you nothing to do with probabilities for the existence of the OP's ESP, one could wonder why you spend so much time defending these esoteric 'possibles', considering this thread's title:
"Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?"

 

[Roger Ramjets]

considering this thread's title:
"Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?"

"Probable" implies a higher probability that merely "possible". It's "possible" that some people really do have ESP, but no rational person would call it "probable" if the probability was less than 0.000000015% (number of humans on the Earth:- ~7,300,000,000. Number of humans known to have ESP:- 0.)

One thing we haven't considered though - what about aliens? Could they have senses we don't know about? I reckon that if advanced aliens exist then it's pretty likely some do - which means (if you think ESP simply describes undiscovered senses) that they must be psychic!

 

[tsig]

"Probable" implies a higher probability that merely "possible". It's "possible" that some people really do have ESP, but no rational person would call it "probable" if the probability was less than 0.000000015% (number of humans on the Earth:- ~7,300,000,000. Number of humans known to have ESP:- 0.)

One thing we haven't considered though - what about aliens? Could they have senses we don't know about? I reckon that if advanced aliens exist then it's pretty likely some do - which means (if you think ESP simply describes undiscovered senses) that they must be psychic!

Since aliens exist in the same physical reality we do their senses cannot violate the rules of that reality.

 

[Daylightstar]

... It's "possible" that some people really do have ESP, ...

What makes some people having ESP possible?

 

[McHrozni]

Which would make "ESP" an oxymoron. As it's generally accepted, though, ESP means perception beyond any of the known senses, not perception beyond any sense. The term itself is confusing because of this.

I don't see how this would be a problem at all. A radio is nothing more than a device that senses something we can't sense with any of our senses and translates it into something we can sense and vice versa.

This banalizes the ESP question to "is it possible there are creatures that have senses we humans don't naturally have", to which the answer is quite frank: not only it's possible, but there are numerous examples of that. Dogs and cats can hear sound frequencies humans can't, owls and snakes can see light frequencies humans can't. It snowballs from there on.

McHrozni

 

[tsig]

I don't see how this would be a problem at all. A radio is nothing more than a device that senses something we can't sense with any of our senses and translates it into something we can sense and vice versa.

This banalizes the ESP question to "is it possible there are creatures that have senses we humans don't naturally have", to which the answer is quite frank: not only it's possible, but there are numerous examples of that. Dogs and cats can hear sound frequencies humans can't, owls and snakes can see light frequencies humans can't. It snowballs from there on.

McHrozni

We can see and hear so we have the same senses just different ranges.


ETA: a radio only works when there is a transmitter what do you suggest is transmitting info into humans brains?

 

[tsig]

What makes some people having ESP possible?

Wishful thinking.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

We can see and hear so we have the same senses just different ranges.


ETA: a radio only works when there is a transmitter what do you suggest is transmitting info into humans brains?

Not all animals just have different ranges. Birds, bees, and turtles all possess the ability to navigate by the Earth's magnetic field. It is remotely possible that if some human possessed this ability, you could legitimately call it ESP. It is theoretically possible.

On the other hand, until there is verifiable evidence, it is only possible, no way to calculate a probability.

 

[Daylightstar]

Not all animals just have different ranges. Birds, bees, and turtles all possess the ability to navigate by the Earth's magnetic field. It is remotely possible that if some human possessed this ability, you could legitimately call it ESP. It is theoretically possible.

On the other hand, until there is verifiable evidence, it is only possible, no way to calculate a probability.

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Not really. ESP refers to claimed perceptions with 'the mind'. Navigating by Earth's magnetic field would need a physical receptor, and would thus not be ESP.

What are you referring to as "remotely possible" and "theoretically possible"?
Humans navigating by Earth's magnetic field?
or
that such could legitimately, according to you, be called ESP?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Not really. ESP refers to claimed perceptions with 'the mind'. Navigating by Earth's magnetic field would need a physical receptor, and would thus not be ESP.

What are you referring to as "remotely possible" and "theoretically possible"?
Humans navigating by Earth's magnetic field?
or
that such could legitimately, according to you, be called ESP?

Not really interested in debating the nuances of the definition of "mind". I already pages ago explained what I would call ESP. Basically a sixth sense. Remotely possible refers to ESP. Read the context again. But just because something is possible simply because we don't know everything, doesn't mean the possibility is established. There is no verifiable case. It goes back to the logic fallacy of proving a negative. You can safely say that ESP doesn't exist, because there is no verifiable evidence of it. But that is very different than claiming it is impossible.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not really interested in debating the nuances of the definition of "mind". I already pages ago explained what I would call ESP. Basically a sixth sense. Remotely possible refers to ESP. Read the context again. But just because something is possible simply because we don't know everything, doesn't mean the possibility is established. There is no verifiable case. It goes back to the logic fallacy of proving a negative. You can safely say that ESP doesn't exist, because there is no verifiable evidence of it. But that is very different than claiming it is impossible.

Extra Sensory Perception requires that the person not posses a sense by which something is perceived. Sorry, if humans had the magnetic field sense then any perception derived via that sense does not qualify. Same applies to a bat or dolphin sonar imaging sense. If we were to accept your definition then humans already have ESP as far as dogs are concerned since we can distinguish more colurs than they can .

 

[Dinwar]

Extra Sensory Perception requires that the person not posses a sense by which something is perceived. Sorry, if humans had the magnetic field sense then any perception derived via that sense does not qualify. Same applies to a bat or dolphin sonar imaging sense. If we were to accept your definition then humans already have ESP as far as dogs are concerned since we can distinguish more colurs than they can .

For that matter, anyone with an ear implant that allows them to hear when before they were deaf would, by that definition, have ESP. A human using a thermal imaging camera would as well.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Extra Sensory Perception requires that the person not posses a sense by which something is perceived. Sorry, if humans had the magnetic field sense then any perception derived via that sense does not qualify. Same applies to a bat or dolphin sonar imaging sense. If we were to accept your definition then humans already have ESP as far as dogs are concerned since we can distinguish more colurs than they can .

Simply proclaiming ESP can't exist because if ever proven it will become by definition not ESP is an uninteresting philosophical argument of changing definitions so that you can never be wrong. It's a pointless debate in the context of the OP.