Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[annnnoid]

You have a careless habit of poor attribution.

Where did you read this ?

What is the source of this quote?

There have been innumerable consciousness threads. Sometimes the discussion revolved around the question of whether consciousness is phenomenologically distinct. Many insisted that this was not the case, partly because there are significant implications to admitting that it is. Not going to bother exploring them here.

 

[Slowvehicle]

There have been innumerable consciousness threads. Sometimes the discussion revolved around the question of whether consciousness is phenomenologically distinct. Many insisted that this was not the case, partly because there are significant implications to admitting that it is. Not going to bother exploring them here.

Surprise.

Another completely unsupported allegation, another unsourced quote.

Oh, well.

 

[Daylightstar]

My…but you are eager to penetrate the armor of this pointless issue…aren’t you.

I think I’m just going to wait and see how long it takes for this one to get dumped to AAH. Then if you want to rephrase the question I’d be happy to answer it….just as long as you demonstrate an interest in actually establishing the validity of the data (y’know…science and all that). So far…not even close. You’re just interested in scoring points. Good for you. Have a jelly-bean.

Meanwhile…I’m off like a little girl.
...

Word games. No answer. No real surprise.
Let's conclude that the guy did not show in the article that the data for the referenced experiments is valid.

...
I seriously doubt this is the thread to be getting into a discussion of whether or not the mind and the brain are, or are not, phenomenologically distinct (and if you were to get off your racing horse and think about it for a moment you'd probably come to the same conclusion). Suffice it to say that one of the worlds leading neuroscientists believes they are.

Another unanswered question

Your inability to answer questions meaningfully reminds me of an earlier post, describing the efforts of the 'ESP community':

...
...

• Impotent.

• Inept.

• Incapable.

• Unproductive.

• Inadequate.

• Incompetent.

• Powerless.

..... all seem to fit the bill quite nicely.

 

[Daylightstar]

Oddly enough, Derakhshani no more accuses Piggliucci of fraud than you, or Dinwar, accuse annnnoid of fraud.

OTH, neither does Derakhshani produce, or even reproduce, any actual evidence.

Neither is a big surprise to me

 

[Daylightstar]

...
What is the source of this quote?

I suspect it originates from a Skeptiko podcast, or perhaps their forums where annnnoid likely posts.
It just seems such a statement to me.

 

[jt512]

I However, observation of how science works reveals that it is inherently Bayesian. That's why when some NASA postdoc thought she discovered bacteria that used arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA, no other scientists (except maybe her coauthors) believed her; or when the OPERA lab measured neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light, no one (not even the discoverers) believed the result.

Both were found to fit with conventional theories and shown to be true, despite you misrepresentation of the facts.

The speed of light is subject to small variations in arrival times for because of HIP, the neutrinos did not travel faster than the speed of light despite your statement.

My statement? What statement? A little reading comprehension, please. I am talking about the measurement. I did not say that I thought the measurement was correct. And as for bacteria incorporating arsenic into their DNA, that was not "shown to be true." It was shown to be false, or at the very least unproven.

 

[jt512]

********, they do not rise above the level for noise and you are exaggerating the data at best.

So show us this remarkable data that shows alleged ESP rises above statistical noise, then you don't need Bayesian statistics at all.

I already did. The conventional statistical measure of "rising above the noise" is the p-value, and the conventional criterion for rising above the noise is p<.05. The results I showed had a p-value on the order of 10^–8, so they "rose above the noise" by 6 orders of magnitude by conventional standards. Any novel, but otherwise ordinary finding in experimental psych would be believed with far less evidence, but the extraordinary nature of an ESP claim (that is, its low prior probability) implies—rightly so—that the level of evidence for believability be extraordinary. If you take a deep breath and reread my post in context, you might actually see that I brought up claims for ESP, arsenic bacteria, and superluminal neutrinos as examples demonstrating (especially to Dinwar) that, in practice, science follows Bayesian principles of inference, at least informally.

 

[annnnoid]

Surprise.

Another completely unsupported allegation, another unsourced quote.

Oh, well.

Allegation?!?!? Calm down boy...it's just a statement of fact.

Y'know...if you’re seriously interested in discovering where such statements come from, I can find them easily enough. Pixy Misa, Belz, tsig, and Nonpariel (among others) all argued the position that consciousnesses was not phenomenologically distinct at one time or another. For quite some time Pixy refused to acknowledge that Koch had even made the statement. It would not be hard to find confirmation but it would take some digging around.

…but why would it matter that much? This isn’t a thread about whether or not consciousness is phenomenologically distinct.

Like I said…I can find the stuff if you’re interested, but if you’re only interested in scoring points, don’t expect me to make the effort.

Word games. No answer. No real surprise.
Let's conclude that the guy did not show in the article that the data for the referenced experiments is valid.

He showed me that his data was valid. I’ve said this frequently already. Whether you, or anyone else, comes to the same conclusion is up to you. People in this world do come to different conclusions about things y’know. That does not mean that my conclusion is wrong, or that your conclusion is right. That simply means that I may have different reasons for coming to the conclusion that I come to. Reasons that may not appear to someone else without the same exposure to the material.

…and if there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that you and I have a very different variety of exposure to the material.

So …if you want to conclude that he didn’t show that the data was valid. Go right ahead. If you want anyone to believe you actually care whether or not the data is valid…you’ll have to show some interest in finding out why, in your opinion, it isn’t. Maaneli will answer your questions about the validity of the data…but I don’t think you care one way or the other.

So far…all you’ve shown is that you want to score points.

Another jelly bean.

Another unanswered question

Your inability to answer questions meaningfully reminds me of an earlier post, describing the efforts of the 'ESP community':

Another jelly bean.

Are you seriously interested in starting a discussion about whether or not consciousness is phenomenologically distinct.

Is that your intention? Cause it will require another thread…unless you can explain how it is relevant to this one.

Or do you have an ulterior motive. Y’know…more jelly beans.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Allegation?!?!? Calm down boy...it's just a statement of fact.

Ummm...no.

Despite your repeated incivility (if you only had a clew how funny "boy" is, from you...do you often find that manly posturing and insults further discussion?), I have no need to "calm down".

You have made several allegations, for which you have provided no support at all. That is, in fact, the very nature of an allegation: having made it, you get to support it. Without support, it remains no more than a claim, at best.

Now do you care to answer my question?

What are the sources of the two quotes about which I asked?

Y'know...if you’re seriously interested in discovering where such statements come from, I can find them easily enough. Pixy Misa, Belz, tsig, and Nonpariel (among others) all argued the position that consciousnesses was not phenomenologically distinct at one time or another. For quite some time Pixy refused to acknowledge that Koch had even made the statement. It would not be hard to find confirmation but it would take some digging around.

And, since you have made the claim (and given, for instance, the demonstrable error of your claims that others have accused you of fraud), you get to support your allegation.

Whenever you wish to be taken seriously.

…but why would it matter that much? This isn’t a thread about whether or not consciousness is phenomenologically distinct.

Like I said…I can find the stuff if you’re interested, but if you’re only interested in scoring points, don’t expect me to make the effort.

It will be interesting to see how long you continue to avoid supporting your claim.

Not to mention, if it is not the subject of this thread, why did you bring it up?

He showed me that his data was valid.

How, and where, and in what part of the blog post?

<evasion snip> ...That simply means that I may have different reasons for coming to the conclusion that I come to. Reasons that may not appear to someone else without the same exposure to the material.

…and if there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that you and I have a very different variety of exposure to the material.

And you have been asked, repeatedly and remarkably patiently, to explain what about the blog post led you to your conclusion.

Care to explain?

<candyfetish snip>

 

[Nonpareil]

My only claims…are that there is a great deal of, at the very least, anecdotal evidence that supports the ESP position.

Anecdotes, yes.

Evidence, no.

I would also insist that the research that has been done in the area is, at worst, inconclusive leaning towards favoring the ESP phenomenon.

This is demonstrably false. The experiments done to determine the existence of psychic phenomena, NDEs, and the like have all turned up negatives, save in cases (such as the ganzfeld experiment) where the results are inconclusive due to methodological errors.

Many here have tried to argue that anecdotal evidence is irrelevant…

Because it is. And it's still not evidence.

We've been over why several times in this thread alone, so I'm not going to repeat it all here.

Given the complexity, psychological characteristics, and prevalence of ESP reports (easily above epidemic levels), it is absurd to so casually dismiss the phenomena, especially when (and this is a documented fact) so little clinical study has actually been done in the mainstream academic community (why?...just ask any academic who has tried to get funding for such research or who has publicly admitted to an interest in studying the phenomenon).

I'm curious as to what you consider "epidemic levels". I'm also curious as to why you place so much weight on the accounts of ESP as opposed to, say, religious anecdotes.

It's also worth noting that there are, in actuality, many studies carried out regarding psychic phenomena even today. You simply don't hear about them very often because they keep getting negative results, which, since they are exactly what everyone is expecting, are not considered very notable.

Off the top of my head, the Universities of Arizona and Virginia both maintain psychic research laboratories which are still active. I don't claim to know whether they are reputable institutions or which way their experiments (presumably carried out by students) tend to lean in terms of results, but they do exist, and they are active.

Not to mention the indisputable fact that since science has absolutely no ability to conclusively establish exactly what is (or is not) going on within the subjective experience of anyone (as of this point in time), it is simply impossible to establish that what these people experience is NOT what these people say they experience.

This, on the other hand, is bunk.

The fact that we can't yet send a periscope up to Heaven doesn't mean that we can't conclusively determine that faith healers' subjects aren't actually experiencing anything supernatural.

You certainly can conclude that and I would be surprised if you came to any other conclusion. What you cannot conclusively establish is that this ‘someone’ cannot read your mind. You can doubt it and challenge it till kingdom come…but short of having access to some mythical technology ….you cannot establish what anyone is, or is not, experiencing subjectively.

There has never been a tiger in my house. Can you conclusively, one hundred percent prove that my house is not a natural tiger repellent?

You are very fond of applying unreasonable standards of evidence whenever attempting to defend your pet hypotheses, but bend over backwards to allow such flimsy things as anecdotes when looking for means of support. Odd, that.

And not particularly compelling. We can prove beyond reasonable doubt that such things are not happening. If you want to keep hiding behind "absolute" skepticism, fine by me. Enjoy your solipsism. Just don't pretend that it's rational.

My insults were…inappropriate. There are those, on the other hand, who deserve them.

I'd roll my eyes, but if I did it'd be so hard that they'd be in danger of vacating their sockets.

He showed me that his data was valid.

He really didn't. That's the point being made to you, and the one that you keep dancing around.

Nowhere in the article does he even make the attempt to prove that the data is valid. Unless you mean you've already contacted him personally. Unless...

If you want anyone to believe you actually care whether or not the data is valid…you’ll have to show some interest in finding out why, in your opinion, it isn’t. Maaneli will answer your questions about the validity of the data…but I don’t think you care one way or the other.

So far…all you’ve shown is that you want to score points.

...you just want to score points.

 

[The Norseman]

I mean an example of how the consequent is misunderstood to be never 1 or 0.

You mean someone in this thread who has made the claim that it is zero? Sure I'll link to it after a brief search.

 

[Pixel42]

This is demonstrably false. The experiments done to determine the existence of psychic phenomena, NDEs, and the like have all turned up negatives, save in cases (such as the ganzfeld experiment) where the results are inconclusive due to methodological errors.

There are 175 failed attempts to determine the existence of paranormal phenomena listed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=43

And that's a drop in the ocean of attempts that have been made.

Ganzfeld is an even smaller drop in that ocean, and its results are both questionable and insufficient to account for the anecdotal evidence.

Fallible perceptions/memories and cognitive biases are, however, entirely sufficient to account for the anecdotal evidence.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
He showed me that his data was valid. I’ve said this frequently already. ...

We've not been shown how any data is valid. My conclusion that your friend has not shown in that article that the data of the referenced experiments is valid, seems quite correct and confirmed by you.

...
…and if there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that you and I have a very different variety of exposure to the material.

So …if you want to conclude that he didn’t show that the data was valid. Go right ahead. If you want anyone to believe you actually care whether or not the data is valid…you’ll have to show some interest in finding out why, in your opinion, it isn’t. Maaneli will answer your questions about the validity of the data…but I don’t think you care one way or the other.
...

What I do know is that I have no exposure to 'ESP phenomena' and that others including you, also have no such actual exposure.

...
Another jelly bean.

Are you seriously interested in starting a discussion about whether or not consciousness is phenomenologically distinct.

Is that your intention? Cause it will require another thread…unless you can explain how it is relevant to this one.

Or do you have an ulterior motive. Y’know…more jelly beans.

It's an extension from your Neural Brain Scanner Thingy from Future Fantasy Land.
How was that relevant?

If you want to provide evidence for your brain =/= mind opinion, start a separate thread. But let's be honest, you will only demonstrate that you are incapable of showing any meaningful evidence for your opinion.

 

[Dinwar]

So.....still no actual evidence for ESP. Continued evasions. And repetitions of "It's true because I say so" (which is what "I'm convinced the data are valid" actually means in this context).

Ignoring the brain/mind issue, there's still precisely zero reason for a scientist to take ESP seriously. And with >175 failed attempts to replicate the results, any scientist who values their intellectual integrity is obliged to reject it.

 

[Aridas]

I've been sitting out for a while, so I don't feel like poking at most of the posts I would otherwise do so with.

So, to say something cannot be examined scientifically is to say one of two things: either 1) it is incomprehensible to humans,

Question, then. By incomprehensible, are you using the normal use of "cannot be comprehended," a rather less common use of "impossible to be known," or something else? If the former, I'd have to disagree. If the middle, I could agree. If the latter, I cannot comment directly. If the physical limitations imposed on us by reality prevent us from being able to examine something, either entirely or with sufficient depth to be at all meaningful, the middle version would apply for most versions of known. The former, however, is in no way implied, given that most of us can comprehend a lot of concepts of things that don't have scientific support or cannot be addressed very well at all in any meaningful way.

Going past that, some concepts, by their nature, really cannot be examined scientifically. As mentioned before, science can't really examine whether the FSM or something similar is actively altering the results found by scientists (and non-scientists), especially if the altered picture makes a coherent whole. Concepts like that can be removed from consideration, certainly, for practical purposes, given philosophical grounds, but not actually examined scientifically.

My only claims…are that there is a great deal of, at the very least, anecdotal evidence that supports the ESP position.

I'll agree with you here, annnnoid. Adding a bit more of the whole picture to that, though, involves acknowledging that the anecdotal evidence has been largely trumped by the more objective evidence available that contradicts it combined with the availability of more demonstrable phenomena that could lead to similar descriptions to what's reported in the anecdotes.

I would also insist that the research that has been done in the area is, at worst, inconclusive leaning towards favoring the ESP phenomenon

At best, rather. With regards to the Ganzfeld experiments, for that matter, since they keep coming up, the last time I read up about them, there had been positive results... up until slight noise leakages were eliminated. After that, they no longer were giving positive results, as I recall. The conclusions of a meta-analysis that largely uses demonstrably flawed studies isn't going to be all that trustworthy, either way.

I agree.

I'm really not sure where anyone could have honestly justified that you said anything to the contrary of that.

 

[Craig B]

"The mind is the brain" is nonsense.

"Minds do not exist without brains", on the other hand, remains entirely correct.

That's true. I was reading a recipe for deep fried lambs' brains recently. But I have never seen a recipe for deep fried lambs' minds. On the other hand, deprived of their brains, I doubt if the lambs now possess whatever they once had in the way of minds.

 

[steenkh]

It's self-evident, isn't it?

No, that is the point.

If I have no reason to believe that either H0 or H1 is more likely than the other, then I must believe that they are equally likely. The conclusion is logically necessary.

You could equally argue that since you have no reason to believe that they are equally likely, the logical conclusion must be that one is larger than the other! I do not see the "logical necessity" of your argument here.

 

[Dinwar]

Question, then. By incomprehensible, are you using the normal use of "cannot be comprehended," a rather less common use of "impossible to be known," or something else?

What I mean is that the thing has to be impossible for the human mind to understand, in any way. It's not just that we don't understand it now, or that we don't have the tools to understand it now--science thrives on that sort of thing. I'm saying that it has to be impossible for us to understand it at any time, regardless of how we explore it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that humans do science, and therefore for something to be ammenable to scientific investigation humans need to be able to figure it out. If it's impossible for us to do so, we can never figure it out by definition, and therefore scientific analysis would be useless. Science doesn't remove humans from the equation, it systematically eliminates (over time) our errors. If it's not an error, but rather an inherent limitation, science can't remove it.

Going past that, some concepts, by their nature, really cannot be examined scientifically.

True. Not as many as people think--it's entirely possible to empirically test aspects of one's relationships, for example, though folks get upset if you use those terms (trust me on this...). But I agree that there are things science cannot address. The most common category is scenarios that are edited in an ad hoc fashion to make them untestable--like your FSM example, it's a systematic attempt to prevent the idea from being testable. Fortunately for scientists, such things lack any evidence to support them and are therefore dismissed regardless. Then there are subjective experiences that are based on a person's history. Is your grandmother's cooking better than mine? A blind taste-test wouldn't do it--there are so many factors that the meal is basically a minor component of the question, so a blinded study is worse than useless. And then there are things science can't know--for example, we will never know the number of T. rexes that existed. That data is gone.

But yeah, I think you and I are in agreement on this pointt.

 

[Dinwar]

You could equally argue that since you have no reason to believe that they are equally likely, the logical conclusion must be that one is larger than the other! I do not see the "logical necessity" of your argument here.

There isn't any. In paleontology, we make no such assumption--if we have no way to determine which hypothesis is more likely, we say "I don't know." Since there is a logical alternative (we can support this conclusion with evidence, typically by pointing to specific data gaps that prevent us from making any conclusions), it is therefore demonstrably NOT logically necessary to assume that all outcomes are equal.

It's useful to do so if you don't want to admit you don't know something, but that hardly makes the conclusion a logical necessity.

 

[Aridas]

You could equally argue that since you have no reason to believe that they are equally likely, the logical conclusion must be that one is larger than the other! I do not see the "logical necessity" of your argument here.

Not really. Either way, when talking about Bayesian calculations, he's backed up his position well enough, I'd say.

What I mean is that the thing has to be impossible for the human mind to understand, in any way.

Then yes, I do agree that anyone who tries to claim that they know such things is a fraud. By definition, pretty much. I disagree with your dichotomy from post 1052, though. We seem to be in agreement there, though, at this point, given the rest of your response.

True. Not as many as people think--it's entirely possible to empirically test aspects of one's relationships, for example, though folks get upset if you use those terms (trust me on this...).

Heh. You don't need to repeat the story about how unromantic your wife found that.

But I agree that there are things science cannot address. The most common category is scenarios that are edited in an ad hoc fashion to make them untestable--like your FSM example, it's a systematic attempt to prevent the idea from being testable. Fortunately for scientists, such things lack any evidence to support them and are therefore dismissed regardless.

Indeed. Parsimony is a very, very useful tool, as long as you're dealing with questions where it can apply.

Then there are subjective experiences that are based on a person's history. Is your grandmother's cooking better than mine? A blind taste-test wouldn't do it--there are so many factors that the meal is basically a minor component of the question, so a blinded study is worse than useless. And then there are things science can't know--for example, we will never know the number of T. rexes that existed. That data is gone.

But yeah, I think you and I are in agreement on this pointt.

I'd agree with that assessment. I figured that we probably were, but I thought that I'd clarify things there. Incidentally, I would think that the grandmother's cooking question would, in fact, be able to be examined scientifically, provided that one is willing to accept that the answer will almost certainly involve a possibly large set of more specific and directly answerable questions, given that it is a rather broad question to start. Provided, of course, that the data to answer those can be obtained in the first place.