Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

Red Baron Farms said:
... Remotely possible refers to ESP. Read the context again. ...
Click to expand...
Alright, thank you.

Red Baron Farms said:
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. ... 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.
Click to expand...
Yes, you talked about a sixth sense, here:
Red Baron Farms said:
Any standard definition will do. Mind reading, telekinesis, predicting the future, etc.. without using our 5 standard senses. For that I am not too picky.
...
2) Hypothesize a legit mode of operation (a sixth sense) using known laws of physics, chemistry and/or biology.
...
Click to expand...

ESP requires a non physical receptor, perceiving non-physical signals.
Which means your definition of ESP is no valid definition of ESP.
 
Daylightstar said:
...
ESP requires a non physical receptor, perceiving non-physical signals.
Which means your definition of ESP is no valid definition of ESP.
Click to expand...

Red Baron Farms said:
Any standard definition will do. Mind reading, telekinesis, predicting the future, etc.. without using our 5 standard senses. For that I am not too picky.
...
2) Hypothesize a legit mode of operation (a sixth sense) using known laws of physics, chemistry and/or biology.
...
Click to expand...

Take note that I now retract my agreement in the response to your definition, as quoted below, where it concerns your definition of ESP, specifically.

Daylightstar said:
I agree, although I would replace the word "Hypothesize" with the word "Establish" or "demonstrate" in context of mechanism or part thereof.
But perhaps you intended the term "legit" to cover similar or same.
Click to expand...
 
Red Baron Farms said:
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.
Click to expand...

If ESP exists then why doesn't everybody have it? It would seem such a useful function would be highly selected for.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
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.
Click to expand...

I calculate the possibility that our entire understanding of how the universe works being wrong at 0%, same as ESP's.
 
tsig said:
I calculate the possibility that our entire understanding of how the universe works being wrong at 0%, same as ESP's.
Click to expand...
We are not so far away really. Possibly nothing more than a semantics issue. I would say,
"I calculate the possibility probability that our entire understanding of how the universe works being wrong at 0%, same as ESP's."
Click to expand...
 
Daylightstar said:
Take note that I now retract my agreement in the response to your definition, as quoted below, where it concerns your definition of ESP, specifically.
Click to expand...
Take note I also retract if forced to follow your narrow definition. It saves a whole lot of trouble if you define it that way. Summed up as, "Is something impossible possible?" and the answer to that is, "NO of course not."

However, if you instead say, "Is something unknown possible?" Then I would say, "Very highly unlikely there is ESP, but possible. Find me evidence."
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
Take note I also retract if forced to follow your narrow definition. It saves a whole lot of trouble if you define it that way. Summed up as, "Is something impossible possible?" and the answer to that is, "NO of course not."
...
Click to expand...
However, that:
Daylightstar said:
...
ESP requires a non physical receptor, perceiving non-physical signals.
...
Click to expand...
..... is exactly what ESP is about.

Your summing up of the quote immediately above is inaccurate.

Red Baron Farms said:
...
However, if you instead say, "Is something unknown possible?" Then I would say, "Very highly unlikely there is ESP, but possible. Find me evidence."
Click to expand...
But as is clear from the provided quote, I did not say what you ascribed to me.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right. What I had in mind when I wrote the OP was a phenomenon that would be labeled "ESP" by today's standards, but said phenomenon would have a physical causal mechanism, which is simply unknown at this time. The ESP phenomenon would cease to be paranormal, if that ever happens (and would probably lose the label "ESP").
 
Last edited:
Daylightstar said:
However, that:

..... is exactly what ESP is about.

Your summing up of the quote immediately above is inaccurate.


But as is clear from the provided quote, I did not say what you ascribed to me.
Click to expand...
You never said it, but it is the crux of your argument. See I would include some unknown sixth sense as yet undiscovered and confirmed by science as ESP. Highly unlikely but we don't know everything. You claim even if we did discover this, it by definition couldn't be called ESP because the new physical receptor was discovered and ESP can't have such a physical interaction by any means according to your narrow definition. With that narrow a definition, I wonder why you are posting at all?
 
Fudbucker said:
Right. What I had in mind when I wrote the OP was a phenomenon that would be labeled "ESP" by today's standards, but said phenomenon would have a physical causal mechanism, which is simply unknown at this time.
Click to expand...
A "physical causal mechanism, which is simply unknown at this time" could describe any sense that we simply haven't discovered yet. Since aliens (if they exist) almost certainly haven't followed the same evolutionary pathway as us, it's highly likely that they possess senses unknown to us, eg. the ability to 'see' radio waves or even communicate with them.

But that does not describe what most people think of as 'ESP'. Psychics today don't claim to use radio waves because that is far too prosaic for them. They claim 'mind powers' that are incompatible with everything we know about how the Universe works, such as 'seeing' the future, or traveling to far away places outside of their body, or talking to dead people. These are 'senses' that we not only can't find a mechanism for, they are physically and/or logically impossible.

The truth is, people claim that ESP exists because their minds fool them into believing they have powers that don't exist. They cannot grasp the fact that just because you can imagine something doesn't mean that it is possible.
 
Fudbucker said:
Right. What I had in mind when I wrote the OP was a phenomenon that would be labeled "ESP" by today's standards, but said phenomenon would have a physical causal mechanism, which is simply unknown at this time. The ESP phenomenon would cease to be paranormal, if that ever happens (and would probably lose the label "ESP").
Click to expand...
I understood what you had in mind and argued the point on that basis. However when the discussion moved to a definition of ESP I noticed that the term is technically an oxymoron.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
You never said it, but it is the crux of your argument. See I would include some unknown sixth sense as yet undiscovered and confirmed by science as ESP. Highly unlikely but we don't know everything. You claim even if we did discover this, it by definition couldn't be called ESP because the new physical receptor was discovered and ESP can't have such a physical interaction by any means according to your narrow definition. With that narrow a definition, I wonder why you are posting at all?
Click to expand...

"Extra-Sensory" perception...perception outside the senses. If it is discovered to have a "tails", it is not a "two-headed coin". If it is discovered to be sensory perception, it is not "extra"-sensory.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
You never said it, but it is the crux of your argument. See I would include some unknown sixth sense as yet undiscovered and confirmed by science as ESP. Highly unlikely but we don't know everything. You claim even if we did discover this, it by definition couldn't be called ESP because the new physical receptor was discovered and ESP can't have such a physical interaction by any means according to your narrow definition. With that narrow a definition, I wonder why you are posting at all?
Click to expand...

I think you believe it is the conclusion of what you call my argument, but is simply a correct description of ESP.
When your physical receptor of 'something' is found, you'll still need to find the physical signal and the physical transmitter.

ESP as I refer to, is the ESP where people 'know' stuff because they receive or exchange information with 'the mind'. It is the ESP commonly referred to, not the specially invented definition to 'fit' in an argument.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is correct to say that if a new in-body or in-brain physical communication, with physical transmitter, signal and receptor, would be found, it would indeed not be extra sensory.
 
If we could agree on a couple of concrete phenomena such as mind-reading or remote viewing instead of the general term ESP, we could avoid these futile discussions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom