Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Dinwar]

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").

It's not entirely out of the question if you define it like that. The idea of radio communication would have seemed very much like magic in the Middle Ages. And other animals have senses we lack--for example, many fish can feel the electric currents generated by other organisms (many sharks excell at this). However, it's not ESP. ESP already has a definition.

If you were to ask me "Which is more likely, that we develop some technology that allows ESP-like communication or finding alien life?" I'd have to go with the former. We've done it--it's all based on well-known scientific principles. Here's a link to the University of Washington website discussing it. It's nothing to do with woo, just applying what we know about how brains work.

Of course, it's a near thing--we may have found evidence of life on Titan already.

 

[tsig]

Many an irrational belief is shielded with that expression.

" we don't know everything" is a trademark of woo. It's also looks like an argument from ignorance.

Arguing from Ignorance
Explanation

Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are fallacious.

 

[Daylightstar]

" we don't know everything" is a trademark of woo. It's also looks like an argument from ignorance.

Arguing from Ignorance
Explanation

Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are fallacious.

As seen on T in this thread

 

[jt512]

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.

It's not entirely out of the question if you define it like that. [...] However, it's not ESP. ESP already has a definition.

Fudbucker's description of ESP, or psi, as parapsychologists prefer to call it, is within the definition used by parapsychologists. Here is the first sentence of parapsychologist Daryl Bem's infamous paper "Feeling the Future":

"The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms."​

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Well, imho, precognition, knowing the future, is a form of ESP by which no known physics would allow.

Same goes for remote viewing which would include out of body experiences.

Mind reading is performed by persons such as Kreskin who state categorically that its not mind reading, its a trick. This one however might remotely be possible in that the brain does create EM which theoretically could influence the EM in another's brain and be interpreted. It is however so far fetched as to be nigh on impossible. Even looking at it evolutionarily, we note that this would be of enormous help in a hunting party where nonverbal communication allows a group to not give away its presence to the prey. IF it developed in humans it would logically give an evolutionary edge to those possessing it and be passed on and enhanced. Same applies to telekinetic power.

 

[Daylightstar]

Fudbucker's description of ESP, or psi, as parapsychologists prefer to call it, is within the definition used by parapsychologists. Here is the first sentence of parapsychologist Daryl Bem's infamous paper "Feeling the Future":

"The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms."​

No it's not.

In his latest definition, Fudbucker limits the definition to a system of physical transmitter, signal and receptor.
Bem does not do the same thing, he opens the door to ESP being a mechanism of 'the mind', which it always has 'been'.
It's 'mind' based.

Also, Bem talks about explaining stuff which has not ever been demonstrated to even exist.

 

[Daylightstar]

.... This one however might remotely be possible in that the brain does create EM which theoretically could influence the EM in another's brain and be interpreted. ...

I wonder across what distance

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Fudbucker's description of ESP, or psi, as parapsychologists prefer to call it, is within the definition used by parapsychologists. Here is the first sentence of parapsychologist Daryl Bem's infamous paper "Feeling the Future":

"The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms."​

True, but if that unknown physical or biological mechanism should ever become known, according to Daylightstar's narrow definition, it couldn't be called "ESP". He has stated this plainly:

ESP requires a non physical receptor, perceiving non-physical signals.
Which means your definition of ESP is no valid definition of ESP.

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.

Slowvehicle also made this claim:

If it is discovered to be sensory perception, it is not "extra"-sensory.

However, this narrow definition is absolutely not the context of this thread:

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.

Then you made the claim:

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.

Which is total crap. You are the one who invented a new special definition. See the OP's quote above^ Nor is it a common definition.

ESP
extrasensory perception: perception or communication outside of normal sensory capability, as in telepathy and clairvoyance.-dictionary.com

extrasensory perception noun
: the ability to know things (such as what another person is thinking or what will happen in the future) that cannot be known by normal use of the senses-Merrian-Webster

Extrasensory perception or ESP, also called sixth sense, includes reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind.-Wiki

This is very different than outside any sensory capability.

So in fact it is YOU that have narrowly defined a special invention solely for argument sake. Worse, this shifting definition makes the OP meaningless.

Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

By your narrow definition ESP is completely 100% impossible by definition. As soon as a potentially new previously unknown sense is possibly discovered, it by definition wouldn't qualify as "ESP". Your made up non standard definition makes the whole debate ridiculous.

" we don't know everything" is a trademark of woo. It's also looks like an argument from ignorance.

Completely irrelevant since I am not claiming ESP exists, nor did the OP Fudbucker either. The topic of the thread is the probabilities of discovering something unknown currently. It is quite proper to say "we don't know everything" in this context. If you knew everything about a subject, then the probability of discovering something unknown about that subject would be 0%. So the first logical step in determining a probability of discovering something previously unknown is to establish that we don't know everything about it yet.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
However, this narrow definition is absolutely not the context of this thread:

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.

...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}However, what you call narrow describes correctly what ESP is about.

Oh, and, what's the difference between labeling and defining?

 

[Dinwar]

Oh, and, what's the difference between labeling and defining?

Labeling would be attributing a thing to the correct category. Defining would be establishing the criteria for doing so. You need to define categories (ie, list the essential attributes of the thing necessary for it to fit within each category) before you can label them (ie, asign them to categories).

Of course, irrational schemes of nomenclature are a dime a dozen. Actually working out how to do this stuff is incredibly difficult (biology has been doing it for hundreds of years and still finds nuances that make it difficult), so most people ignore it and find ways to do both at the same time without actually doing either.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
This is very different than outside any sensory capability.

So in fact it is YOU that have narrowly defined a special invention solely for argument sake. Worse, this shifting definition makes the OP meaningless. By your narrow definition ESP is completely 100% impossible by definition. As soon as a potentially new previously unknown sense is possibly discovered, it by definition wouldn't qualify as "ESP". Your made up non standard definition makes the whole debate ridiculous.
...

Clearly, ESP is a 'mind' thing.
However, if you think ESP is a mundane thing yet to be discovered, you're too late. Baby ESP android app already exists.
It's labeled ESP .....

 

[Red Baron Farms]

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}However, what you call narrow describes correctly what ESP is about.

You continue to insist on equivocations? To what purpose? You are so far off topic I don't even know how to relate what you are saying to the context of this thread. I can only guess that, which would make any on topic reply I made automatically a strawman. So just come out and say what you want to say...in the context of this thread, and we will see if we are in agreement or not.

My position is that discovering alien civilization is more probable than discovering ESP, as I stated many times. In fact it is more probable by either definition of ESP, your narrow shifting definition that makes ESP impossible by definition, or the more commonly used definitions used by society in general. Both are still less probable than finding alien civilization.

 

[Daylightstar]

Labeling would be attributing a thing to the correct category. Defining would be establishing the criteria for doing so. You need to define categories (ie, list the essential attributes of the thing necessary for it to fit within each category) before you can label them (ie, asign them to categories).
...

Labeling is not an unknown to me I wonder whether Fudbucker sees a difference with defining.

 

[Daylightstar]

You continue to insist on equivocations? To what purpose? You are so far off topic I don't even know how to relate what you are saying to the context of this thread. I can only guess that, which would make any on topic reply I made automatically a strawman. So just come out and say what you want to say...in the context of this thread, and we will see if we are in agreement or not.
...

Which equivocations?
It so happens I am sticking to what ESP is about. Fudbucker and you have a non specific definition which does not conform to the generally accepted idea of ESP being a (claimed) phenomenon of 'the mind'.
Definitions of each of the OP's items are entirely on topic. If you feel differently, you have the option to report such posts, exclamation mark in bottom left of post.

What I want to say is done in responses to posts. Correcting or pointing out a invalid definition, fallacies, obfuscations, you name it (or label it).

Apparently we do not agree on the definition for 'ESP', but we do agree on the better likelihood (specifically) of finding alien life than "ESP"

... your narrow shifting definition that makes ESP impossible by definition, or the more commonly used definitions used by society in general. Both are still less probable than finding alien civilization.

'ESP' is still a claimed but un-demonstrated phenomenon of 'the mind'.

 

[Fudbucker]

Fudbucker's description of ESP, or psi, as parapsychologists prefer to call it, is within the definition used by parapsychologists. Here is the first sentence of parapsychologist Daryl Bem's infamous paper "Feeling the Future":

"The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms."​

Yeah, that's what I was going with. I should have footnoted what I meant by "ESP". The burden's on me to make myself clear.

 

[Fudbucker]

Baron, I never adequately explained why I rejected your argument that the existence of life here makes the existence of alien life more probable than ESP because we at least have an example of "life". Since "alien life" is a subset of the set "life", it would seem that the existence of the set "life" here should "up" (at least a little bit) the probability of alien life vs. ESP, for which we have no evidence for (other than anecdotal).

Basically, I think the probability of alien life existing depends on two key variables* whose probabilities are undefinable (with the limited knowledge we have now). That makes a probability calculus of the existence of alien life impossible unless we assign arbitrary values to those variables. That would obviously not be a valid to move to make.

If the probability of alien life can't be determined, the probability either A) can't be compared to any other probabilities OR B) can't be greater or lower than any other probabilities. So, either way, the odds of alien life existing can't be less (or greater) than the odds of the existence of ESP abilities (or ability).

In the end, it's a subjective question of surprise. The existence of something like telepathy would require two surprising events: discovering someone who has it, and a physical causal mechanism (the causal mechanism could, of course, be non-physical, but that would be extremely surprising).

The existence of alien life doesn't seem to require as much "surprise". Personally, I wouldn't be too surprised if we find out abiogenesis isn't all that rare AND we find out the habitable zone for the possibility of alien life is fairly large.

So on one hand, I agree that the existence of ESP would be more surprising than the existence of alien life (which would mean the existence of ESP would have a lower probability than alien life). On the other hand, I think this is a case of unjustified incredulity on our parts, since when you really try to pin down the odds of the existence of either, you come up with question marks (at least in the case of alien life existing).

Hope that explained my position!

* the two variables being the odds of abiogenesis occurring and the possible conditions that need to be present for life to even have a chance.

 

[jaydeehess]

I wonder across what distance

Thus my "nigh on impossible".

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Baron, I never adequately explained why I rejected your argument that the existence of life here makes the existence of alien life more probable than ESP because we at least have an example of "life". Since "alien life" is a subset of the set "life", it would seem that the existence of the set "life" here should "up" (at least a little bit) the probability of alien life vs. ESP, for which we have no evidence for (other than anecdotal).

In the end, it's a subjective question of surprise. The existence of something like telepathy would require two surprising events: discovering someone who has it, and a physical causal mechanism (the causal mechanism could, of course, be non-physical, but that would be extremely surprising).

The existence of alien life doesn't seem to require as much "surprise". Personally, I wouldn't be too surprised if we find out abiogenesis isn't all that rare AND we find out the habitable zone for the possibility of alien life is fairly large.

So on one hand, I agree that the existence of ESP would be more surprising than the existence of alien life (which would mean the existence of ESP would have a lower probability than alien life). On the other hand, I think this is a case of unjustified incredulity on our parts, since when you really try to pin down the odds of the existence of either, you come up with question marks (at least in the case of alien life existing).

Hope that explained my position!

Sure. That explains your position. However, you are still looking at it backwards. The "surprise" as you call it would be to learn there are no alien civilizations. There is no scientific "surprise" if we find one. Why? Because we have one example already and we have enough knowledge to understand there are plenty enough other solar systems in the universe that the probability we are unique in being the only life is ridiculously small. But existing and contacting are two different things. I get that. You are correct. We can't make a precise calculation of the probability. There is no need. In formalized probability sets are interpreted as events and probability itself as a measure on a class of sets. We have an event here on earth of civilization. So we have a set. We have no event of ESP. So we have no sets.

You were discussing earlier the Drake equation and Bayesian probability. Well as it turns out you actually can use Bayesian probability with the Drake equation. Bayesian probability is simply a way to calculate using reasoning when truth or falsity is uncertain. The way you do it is by calculating based on some specific prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new, relevant evidence.

We have a prior probability with advanced life. When all we knew was Earth, we had 1 out of 1. When we began to understand more and understood not all planets hold civilizations, we had 1 out of 13. But we also now know that other stars have planets. Once they are sufficiently investigated to determine if they have civilizations, the probability will change. That's how Bayesian probability and the Drake equation work. As you gain knowledge and evidence, you fill it in, and the probability will change. In all cases though, it is a positive non-zero result because we have Earth. We have our prior.

Very different for ESP. WE have no prior. It is 0 confirmed cases. So we have 0 in 1, 0 in 2, 0 in a million, 0 in infinity. The probability calculation is 0.

Thus at our current state of knowledge, the calculation of probabilities for alien civilization is always greater than for ESP, because all non-zero positive numbers are greater than 0.

QED

 

[Fudbucker]

Sure. That explains your position. However, you are still looking at it backwards. The "surprise" as you call it would be to learn there are no alien civilizations. There is no scientific "surprise" if we find one. Why? Because we have one example already and we have enough knowledge to understand there are plenty enough other solar systems in the universe that the probability we are unique in being the only life is ridiculously small.

Why is it ridiculously small? In order for you to validly claim that, you would have to have some idea of what the odds of abiongenesis are occurring on some earth-like planet, and also know what the necessary conditions are for life to even be possible.

Not even do we not have precise numbers for these probabilities, we don't even have ballpark estimates. If the odds of abiogenesis occurring are one in a trillion AND 20 narrow-range necessary conditions must be present for life to even have a chance (like an axial tilt that can't vary more than a couple degrees), then the probability of Earth-life being the only life in the universe is ridiculously huge.

Since neither us know either A) the odds of abiogenesis or B) the necessary conditions for life to exist, neither of us can say anything about the odds of alien life existing. You claim that with all the planets in the universe, it's a near certainty, but if you examine that claim, you'll see you're plugging in probabilities for abiogenesis and habitability zones that are just favorable guesses, on your part. I can just as easily plug in probabilities that make the existence of alien life in the universe vanishingly small.

Does abiogenesis occur on every earth-like planet? Every 10? 100? 100 billion? We simply don't know how rare (or likely it is). Your favorable guess is as good as my unfavorable guess. The odds are simply unknown, which makes any claim either of us make about the existence of alien life unsubstantiated by evidence. Yes, we know it happened here, but we don't know if it happened anywhere else, and the question is about other planets, not Earth.

But existing and contacting are two different things. I get that. You are correct. We can't make a precise calculation of the probability.

No, we can't many any calculation for the probability of alien life, precise or otherwise. Go ahead and try. I guarantee that whatever favorable result you get, I can get the opposite result, and both our calculations will have the same validity- none. Neither calculation will have any evidence supporting it. Tell me, what are the odds of self-replicating molecules arising out of an organic soup? Do you have any idea what the odds are? If so, what evidence are you basing it on?

There is no need. In formalized probability sets are interpreted as events and probability itself as a measure on a class of sets. We have an event here on earth of civilization. So we have a set. We have no event of ESP. So we have no sets.

No, probability (in this case), is the likelihood of a claim being true or not. The probability of the claim "alien life exists" cannot be determined at all, with the information we currently have. If you think it can, then tell me approximately how many earth-like planets are needed to make the claim "alien life exists" probable, and then tell me how you came about that conclusion. 10? 100? 1,000?

You were discussing earlier the Drake equation and Bayesian probability. Well as it turns out you actually can use Bayesian probability with the Drake equation. Bayesian probability is simply a way to calculate using reasoning when truth or falsity is uncertain. The way you do it is by calculating based on some specific prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new, relevant evidence.

Right, and the Bayesian probability for alien life is Pr(H/E) = Pr(E/H) x Pr(H) / Pr(E)

(H) here is the hypothesis "alien life exists".

Let me ask you then, what is (E), the "relevant evidence" ? It has to be life here on Earth. There is no other evidence of alien life to point to. But we already know there's life on Earth, so the probability of life on Earth is 1. There is no confirmation when the probability of your evidence is 1.

Let me also ask you, what prior probability are you assigning to H (alien life exists)? .5? .99? .0001? What is your rational for whatever number you pick?

If you do the Bayesian analysis, you'll see pretty quickly that it falls apart. Trying to figure out the probability of the existence of alien life, with two key variables of the Drake equation missing, is like asking what the probability is of a greentch appearing in the sky tomorrow without defining what "greentch" is.

But go ahead and try. Do the analysis and argue for the values you assign to Pr(E) and the prior probability of (H).

We have a prior probability with advanced life. When all we knew was Earth, we had 1 out of 1. When we began to understand more and understood not all planets hold civilizations, we had 1 out of 13. But we also now know that other stars have planets. Once they are sufficiently investigated to determine if they have civilizations, the probability will change. That's how Bayesian probability and the Drake equation work. As you gain knowledge and evidence, you fill it in, and the probability will change. In all cases though, it is a positive non-zero result because we have Earth. We have our prior.

Of course the existence of alien life is non-zero, but so is the existence of ESP. There's nothing logically contradictory about either one.

And you're correct that probabilities change as valid evidence comes in. They either go up or down. Suppose we examine a million earth-like planets and find no life? What does that do the probability that alien life exists? A fruitless search of that many planets would disconfirm the existence of alien life to a great degree.

Very different for ESP. WE have no prior.

We have no prior for "alien life" either. Life on Earth does not allow us to assign a probability to the existence of alien life. It only confirms what we already know- the probability of alien life is non-zero, but that's trivially true, since alien life isn't a logical contradiction. The fact that there's life on Earth doesn't allow is to assign any number to Pr(H), where (H) is "alien life exists". If you have a number in mind for Pr(H), what is it? How do did you come by it?

It is 0 confirmed cases. So we have 0 in 1, 0 in 2, 0 in a million, 0 in infinity. The probability calculation is 0.

No, it's not zero. only logical contradictions are zero. Just because something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it's impossible. That would give the interesting result that the probability of neutrinos existing before they were discovered was zero since there were "0 confirmed cases" of neutrinos existing before they were discovered.

Where your argument goes astray is when you compare the set of ESP to the set of Life. I agree that ESP loses badly in that case. However, that's not the comparison. The comparison is the existence of ESP vs. the existence of alien life. In both cases, the set is currently zero- ESP abilities have not been discovered, nor has any alien life.

Thus at our current state of knowledge, the calculation of probabilities for alien civilization is always greater than for ESP, because all non-zero positive numbers are greater than 0.

QED

Except the probability of ESP isn't 0. Unless you're arguing that ESP is a logical contradiction. Are you arguing that?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Where your argument goes astray is when you compare the set of ESP to the set of Life. I agree that ESP loses badly in that case. However, that's not the comparison. The comparison is the existence of ESP vs. the existence of alien life. In both cases, the set is currently zero- ESP abilities have not been discovered, nor has any alien life.



Except the probability of ESP isn't 0. Unless you're arguing that ESP is a logical contradiction. Are you arguing that?

In the context of Bayesian probability, yes the probability of ESP is currently zero. This is because we have no prior and we also have no hypothesis as to how it could be possible. Lacking any examples AND lacking any hypothesis both, the result is zero. If you could even come up with a hypothesis where ESP is even possible within the known laws of physics, I could accept a non-zero result. As far as I know, no one has done that as of yet. On the other hand civilization is demonstrably possible. Absolutely for certain we have a non-zero result due to this prior example, us.