Do you believe in psychics, extraterrestrial life, time travel, other universes?

[Schmittay]

Of course, but that's not what happened. I would also say that sometimes the mind changes things not based on a means of understanding but as a way of reinforcing previously held prejudices. Which would apply to people will will deny the experiences of others simply because it never happened to them.

I'm not denying your experience, I am denying your conclusion, especially at how you came to it. As I said, the mind can create it's own reality completely different to another person, yet neither would be the correct / incorrect one. And if they both came to different conclusions, it doesn't mean either of them were right / wrong, as in BOTH could be wrong, or BOTH can be right.

[Triceron]

Of course, but that's not what happened. I would also say that sometimes the mind changes things not based on a means of understanding but as a way of reinforcing previously held prejudices. Which would apply to people will will deny the experiences of others simply because it never happened to them.

I think it's more that you said you know for a FACT it exists, when you can't actually prove it as a fact and that statement itself is an extremely strong one to make when facts are verifiable truths and not just 'things you're really sure are true but can't really prove it.'


That being said, I personally do believe in stuff such as intuition, sensitivity, foresight etc. There are numerous stories I've heard which, IMO, are more than mere coincidence. I believe in bad luck/fortune as well, and I do think certain people are more prone to 'bad luck' than others. But I wouldn't call any of this is fact.

[Biomega]

Currently, they are one and the same. We lack the scientific means to explain it, thus it is unexplainable. And it is also unexplained.

They're not the same. Saying I'm "unkilled" is one thing - saying I'm "unkillable" is quite another.

Who said I cared to have a discussion based on rational arguments with you? I expressed an opinion, and you're forcibly trying to hold me accountable to prove my statements as factual. If anything, that's just rude.

No, I'm saying that if you didn't intend to have a rational discussion, feel free to say anything you like; but don't be surprised if people simply dismiss it. If you want to actually engage with other people, you'll have to do more than just utter an opinion - and since you're entering conversation here and not just posting a blog and leaving it at that, I daresay you may at least unconsciously be interested in actually discussing stuff rather than just just making a bunch of assertions nobody can interact with.

If you want to have a rational argument, then what can we rationally discuss about the existence of psychic phenomena? There's really nothing to discuss outside of our complete lack of scientific knowledge regarding the subject, thus a rational means to debunk its existence altogether.

Pretty much, yes. You can debate the FANTASY of psychic phenomena as an exercise of imagination and fiction. Great fun. But there is no "existence of psychic phenomena" because none of them have been shown to exist, even a little bit. If you want to argue otherwise, you have to provide evidence - opinion doesn't work here, because you're (ostensibly) trying to make a case for something purporting to represent reality; if reality doesn't interest you, that's fine, too, but then we can't really have a discussion about reality we can only have an exchange of imagination (see above).

I was making a point that my particular thought experiment is more in line of being a philosophical discussion more than a scientific one, such as any rational the scientific proof of 'God' would not be sufficiently plausible to be answered by science at all.

But you're not offering up a philosophical subject - you're trying to talk about reality. That's where philosophical discussions about God run into issues as well; they're fine as long as no claims about reality are being made, but the problem is that a lot of God concepts inextricably connect to claims about reality.

The context lies directly with my expressed opinion, and it was absolutely not the start of my sentence, it was the sentence after I'd already expressed an opinion of pure speculation. Context matters

The problem is that people who purport to only want to discuss opinions rarely do just that; I could just say "okay, my opinion is that there aren't any psychic phenomena" and then what do we do? Congratulate each other on our differing positions and go home? I don't think that's what you're after, but maybe I'm wrong? If your goal isn't to try and determine what's true, I don't know what your goal is.

If you're unable to regard the clarification I've given you and wish to argue a moot point, then really all you're arguing with is yourself. You want to talk about conjecture? Then this is exactly what you are arguing. You try and say you want a rational discussion despite providing all the evidence that you have no intention of rationally discussing psychic phenomena, on the basis that you don't even regard such things existing.

I want to have a rational discussion; that's not the same as me wanting to have a rational discussion about psychic phenomena. Because you're quite right: I don't think you CAN have a rational discussion with a premise that flawed, at least not if the goal is to arrive at a truth about reality. If the goal is pure entertainment then by all means, put forward any premise you like and abstract from that as best your imagination allows. But I'm not interested in that, at least not in this venue. If your goal is to have a rational discussion about the existence of psychic phenomena, the first thing you'd need to do is demonstrate that's actually possible, and that would require a demonstration of the premise.

[Shadowferal]

The only laughable part has been the ridiculous attempts at explaining away my experiences.

I wouldn't have wasted the time myself.

. We can't have a *rational* discussion that is based on science. Yet we can absolutely have a discussion beyond that, such as a philosophical or speculative one. .

I'd say the philosophical argument is more important to have before the science. ("Philosopher's" degrees and all that)

[Triceron]

They're not the same. Saying I'm "unkilled" is one thing - saying I'm "unkillable" is quite another.

Yeah, that's called arguing semantics


If someone outright states they are unkillable, then there is a contextual nuance to that statement which does not have to be rationally proven by science. And there are contextual instances where 'unkilled' and 'unkillable' can be interchangeable without changing said context, such as something that has remained unkilled, and percieved to be unkillable. These statements are not mutually exclusive, even if they do have different meanings attached to them.

I want to have a rational discussion; that's not the same as me wanting to have a rational discussion about psychic phenomena.

It's funny that you say you want to have a rational discussion when the entire point of arguing semantics is itself irrational. Just saying.

[Schmittay]

That being said, I personally do believe in stuff such as intuition, sensitivity, foresight etc. There are numerous stories I've heard which, IMO, are more than mere coincidence. I believe in bad luck/fortune as well, and I do think certain people are more prone to 'bad luck' than others. But I wouldn't call any of this is fact.

I recently found the absolute gem of a channel, here he speaks about luck. Worth a watch.

[Biomega]

Yeah, that's called arguing semantics

Sorry, are you the one going on about having a "philosophical discussion" or was that someone else? Language is supremely important.

It's funny that you say you want to have a rational discussion when the entire point of arguing semantics is itself irrational. Just saying.

I'm not sure where this idea of "oh it's just semantics" as a valid argument comes from - when both science and philosophy (and indeed most of the humanities) are almost DEFINED by the importance of their terminological precision. Religions, too, by the way.

So yeah, idk what your goal is here, if it's not to have a serious discussion about some very complicated, and very intricate topics. If you think you can just brush them off as "just semantics" what are you even trying to achieve?

[Irian]

Psychics: Not really but it's not a hard no, just a very likely no. I think psychics are often simply intuitive on a subconscious level. Literally reading minds? Probably not, but I think we broadcast way more in body language than we could ever realize.

Aliens: Yes, in a nearly infinite universe there are undoubtedly other life forms? Intelligent....? Hard to say.

Time Travel: In short terms it's already proven to exist, but as far as drastic time shifts such as going into the past and future? Maybe someday, but not any time soon.

Other universes: Kind of. Many theories point to it being possible, but I feel like I'm not smart enough to say definitively or not. Simulation theory, parallel universes...it's fascinating but all way too speculative with not enough facts to say right now.

[Triceron]

I'm not sure where this idea of "oh it's just semantics" as a valid argument comes from - when both science and philosophy (and indeed most of the humanities) are almost DEFINED by the importance of their terminological precision. Religions, too, by the way.

It's not a blanket argument. It's specifically what you're arguing.

Is conciousness scientifically provable? I can with confidence that it is not provable, and it is not a wrong statement to have considering it is currently valid. Unprovable means "unable to be proven". With what means is there to scientifically prove conciousness truly exists?

Rationally speaking that is already a valid statement, and irrationally you are choosing to argue semantics that at some future point science can catch up and *maybe* be able to attempt to prove it exists. But as I'm pointing out, that's purely semantics since currently it isn't provable at all.

And the sad fact is you already agree that it can't be proved right now. And on top of that, the definition of unprovable simply means it unable to be proved, not just that it can never be proven. The word I used is absolutely applicable to the concept of conciousness, as well as to regard psychic phenomena. So again, this is specifically about you arguing semantics, because you personally chose to interpret it as 'can never be proven' when the word simply means 'unable to be proven'.


Or let's use your unkillable example. What does unkillable mean? It means incapable of being killed. It may imply something that may never be killed, but never be killed is not its only meaning. There is context behind it.

Like if I said I am unkillable unless you stab me in the heel. Unkillable doesn't mean never killable, it is absolutely contextual.


To make a further point, the whole part about being scientifically inexplainable was contextually about my personal belief.

My personal belief is that our brains could be types of transmitters/receptors that can process some ethereal form of (collective) information that we aren't openly aware of. Some are more sensitive to it, some are not. And it can't really be explained by science since science covers the tangible and physical properties of the universe, while something like this is much more in the vein of trying to explain what conciousness really is, beyond a 'series of chemical reactions in the brain'.

It was speculation on how I think we interact with what could be considered psychic phenomena and what it could be

Psychic phenomena discussion may not be provable, because as you already explained, it's not a tangible subject that can be discussed as scientifically existing in the first place. The discussion around it would not be based on rationality and science to define. Therefore your admittance to wanting to discuss this rationally is.. itself irrational. Something you openly acknowledge as being fantasy, then using a whole lot of 'But but but you said!' to try and argue more semantics as if this could ever be a rational discussion in the first place. Not once did I ever make a statement about conciousness or psychic phenomena needing to be scientifically proven or disproven. Let's make it clear that you were the one first replying to me saying that you think I need to scientifically prove it doesn't exist in order to regard them as fantastic concepts.


Rationally speaking, am I making enough sense to you?

So yeah, idk what your goal is here, if it's not to have a serious discussion about some very complicated, and very intricate topics. If you think you can just brush them off as "just semantics" what are you even trying to achieve?

I expressed an opinion. I didn't open it to discussion or debate. I achieved what I wanted a page ago, which others have commented on to add on how it'd likely be better in the realm of philosophic discussion, which was exactly what I was implying.

Question is, why are you interested in holding a rational discussion about psychic phenomena in a thread about psychics when you acknowledge it as fantasy? And when did I ever invite any rational discussion of psychic phenomena? You seem to be quite confused if you ever thought anything I said was ever intending to invite you to a rational discussion.

And on top of that, it's quite funny to me that you imply the importance of terminological precision, yet you chose to paraphrase my statements to 'beyond science' when I clearly never stated such. I'd argue that you twisted my entire argument into sounding like science denying, and that you didn't regard any importance of terminological precision when initially replying to me.

[Darththeo]

No, you don't. you simply have theories based on statistics and probabilities which actually do not apply.

Yes, that's what is more likely to exist means.
And they do apply regardless of what you convinced yourself otherwise.

[Surfd]

The "life is rare" hypothesis is EASILY falsified. Discovery a single instance of ET life anywhere nearby would falsify it. Hell, discovery of two separate kinds of life on Earth that don't have a common ancestor (implying OoL is easy) would falsify it.

Umm, no.

We keep trying to point this out to you, but in order to even make the statement "life is rare", you need to be able to set a quantifiable range for "rarity". When we are dealing with a potential frame of scope of "the entire universe", what is the bounds for "rarity"? It happened on earth. We know this for a Fact. But given the size and scale we are dealing with, we could literally examine every square inch of the universe around our planet reachable in the next million years and even if we came up empty, that still wouldn't be even a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the universe in question. Entire worlds could develop life literally right now and then cease to exist millennia later at distances so far away that we would never be able to verify their existence even if we were pointed directly at them and left to visit tomorrow.

So what's the bound for rarity on life across the ENTIRE universe? If "rare" can be measured in "100% chance there is life on one planet in every cubic hundred million light years of space", then our chance of ever actually discovering life anywhere is effectively nil. Yet that does not mean that life isn't out there.

I mean, from another perspective, lets assume that life in the universe ISN'T rare. For argument sake, lets say that 2% of the entire universe contains 1 Planet supporting life. 2% isn't rare, by any means. Given the sheer scale we are dealing with though, if those planets were randomly distributed around the Universe, the odds of any 2 of those sources of life ever discovering each other would be astronomically small. Like, tens of millions of lightyears between potential first contacts. And yet you seem to think simply having not found evidence of other life within literal spitting distance of home is somehow a meaningful measurement.

[Triceron]

I mean, from another perspective, lets assume that life in the universe ISN'T rare. For argument sake, lets say that 2% of the entire universe contains 1 Planet supporting life. 2% isn't rare, by any means. Given the sheer scale we are dealing with though, if those planets were randomly distributed around the Universe, the odds of any 2 of those sources of life ever discovering each other would be astronomically small. Like, tens of millions of lightyears between potential first contacts. And yet you seem to think simply having not found evidence of other life within literal spitting distance of home is somehow a meaningful measurement.

Hell, you could up that percentage to 99% and it'd still work. Like if 99% of the unobserved parts of the universe (including planets we can see, but not actually observe into) all contain life, we still have no way of really verifying it because we neither have the technology nor the means to. Hell the majority of our own world is left unexplored since it's all underwater. We've barely scratched the surface on what actually exists in the deep oceans. We wouldn't really know about life existing on other planets unless they had the same conditions that allowed it to thrive on the surface of planets.

[Osmeric]

Ok.

Then we are the only planet in the entire universe where life developed. Lucky us right?

Observer selection bias guarantees that if life is rare, all observers will be lucky. But they won't feel lucky, because they have a biased view of the universe. This illusion will make those who aren't careful think life is more common than it actually is (in that scenario).

- - - Updated - - -

Umm, no.

Umm, yes. This is falsification I was talking about, not confirmation. They are not the same thing!

If we find a SINGLE occurrence of ET life nearby (that is different enough from our own to be a separate Origin of Life event), then either life is pretty common in the universe, OR there was an incredible coincidence that life started near us. Observer selection bias would NOT apply here!

We keep trying to point this out to you, but in order to even make the statement "life is rare", you need to be able to set a quantifiable range for "rarity".

In this case, "rare" would be "would have a very low chance of appearing in the volume in which we looked for (and found) ET life". The smaller the volume in which we found that life, the less rare life could be. If we found life right next door, around Alpha Centauri, we could confidently conclude the galaxy (and universe) must be loaded with life.

In constrast, the assertion that life exists somewhere else, without an assertion of likelihood, is extremely difficult to falsify.

These two aspects are reversed if we are talking about the difficulty of CONFIRMING a theory. Confirming the rarity of life is difficult; the more rare, the more difficult, while confirming the presence of life requires just a single observation.

So what's the bound for rarity on life across the ENTIRE universe? If "rare" can be measured in "100% chance there is life on one planet in every cubic hundred million light years of space", then our chance of ever actually discovering life anywhere is effectively nil. Yet that does not mean that life isn't out there.

You are confusing falsification and confirmation here. I was responding to the claim that rarity is difficult to falsify.

[Shadowferal]

No.
I hold to different beliefs.
Beliefs that are dismissive of logic, math, and science. They are merely tools and unnecessary.

[Chadow]

No.
I hold to different beliefs.
Beliefs that are dismissive of logic, math, and science. They are merely tools and unnecessary.

Explain to me "infinity" and "nothingness".
Those are things impossible to describe.

Ima be honest, my beliefs always came from this impossible things...amongst other things like...how incredible a human is/can be.

[Local Skinwalker]

Explain to me "infinity" and "nothingness".
Those are things impossible to describe.

Ima be honest, my beliefs always came from this impossible things...amongst other things like...how incredible a human is/can be.

infinity means the state of being "infinite" which itself Means "endless, impossible to scale or put into perspective, or impossible to measure" ... one could say "never ending".
nothingness means "absence of life or existing" which one could argue a Black Hole is an example of

It's actually pretty easy to describe if you actually try

[Chadow]

infinity means the state of being "infinite" which itself Means "endless, impossible to scale or put into perspective, or impossible to measure" ... one could say "never ending".
nothingness means "absence of life or existing" which one could argue a Black Hole is an example of

It's actually pretty easy to describe if you actually try

You explained to me the language definition thats not what i mean
I mean...is impossible to even imagine in your head

infinity...we cant grasp it
Nothingness...no space, exactly "nothing" is also impossible to grasp.

[Local Skinwalker]

You explained to me the language definition thats not what i mean
I mean...is impossible to even imagine in your head

infinity...we cant grasp it
Nothingness...no space, exactly "nothing" is also impossible to grasp.

then Why are you asking for somebody to describe it to you if you're just dismissing the concept of being able to describe it?
Are you not able to visualize/think/conceive of things in your head based on words you read and things you here?

[Calfredd]

then Why are you asking for somebody to describe it to you if you're just dismissing the concept of being able to describe it?
Are you not able to visualize/think/conceive of things in your head based on words you read and things you here?

I mean, he made a thread where he described the definition of love and it turned out to be this weird dependent and narcissistic definition, so "conventional" descriptions are not his forte.

[Shadowferal]

Explain to me "infinity" and "nothingness". Those are things impossible to describe. Ima be honest, my beliefs always came from this impossible things...amongst other things like...how incredible a human is/can be.

What does that have to do with what I posted?