Global Consciousness Project

[T'ai Chi]

And you would expect it to be 50%, but try this - generate 200 random numbers in a spreadsheet and then calculate the z scores using the assumed mean and standard deviation (as GCP does). Then calculate the percentage of positive z scores and try hitting the recalculate key a few times. This will vary from about 45% to 60% so the results are not unusual for purely random data.

Feel free to post a link to your Excel file, or to the code you use for each column.

I agree that it would vary approximately over that range, and that is in fact what yields such a small p-value, because it is unlikely to be that far out.

 

[T'ai Chi]

One of they key claims of the project is that cumulative z^2-1 from normally distributed random data will always do a random walk around zero. Well maybe, but how close to zero? In fact if you try this just on a spreadsheet you will find that cumulative z^2-1 from random data displays just the deviations that Nelson claims are evidence of a link with global consciousness.

Again, feel free to post a link to your Excel file, or to the code you use for each column.

 

[Robin]

Feel free to post a link to your Excel file, or to the code you use for each column.

I agree that it would vary approximately over that range, and that is in fact what yields such a small p-value, because it is unlikely to be that far out. [/B]

I will post it over the weekend, but it would only take you a few minutes to put together such a spreadsheet.

In fact I find that about 1 in 5 recalcs gives me a value of 58% or greater, I have got 64% so it is not so very unlikely. And especially given the different resolutions under which the values were calculated.

 

[Robin]

Again, feel free to post a link to your Excel file, or to the code you use for each column.

Put the formula =ROUND(RAND(),0) in cells A1:GR1, then =SUM(A1:GR1) in GS1. Then in GT1 put =STANDARDIZE(GS1,100,SQRT(50)). In GU1 put =GT1^2-1.

Now copy all this to as many rows as you like, then in GV1 put =GU1 and in GV2 put =GV1+GU2. Copy GV2 to all the rows that have values.

Now highlight all the figures in the GV column and click your graph tool, and select a line graph. Once the graph is created hit F9 a few times and you will see sometimes a random walk, sometimes a positive slope, sometimes a negative slope.

From the procedures page on the GCP site:

The 200-bit trial sums have expected mean = 100 and standard deviation = 7.071

I suggest copying to about 8,000 rows as this is about the same as the 6 days at 1 minute resolution in the Papal Visit to Israel example. They suggest that a continuous trend over 6 days is highly unlikely but it is not really. In fact they get a 7 day steeper positive slope in the same month from 9th March to 15th March.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Thanks Robin for actualy showing something! It is hard to get that round these parts.

I think we'd need to also calculate the significance bands, like the GCP folk do, to interpret what is going on. Yes, the random walk will stray from 0 and that is not surprising, but how far from 0 until significance is declared?

 

[Zep]

Zep, if you were paying attention (replying to me, even though in another thread you claim to have me on ignore?, ), I didn't ask you for a list of their supporters. I asked you to reveal all of this money that you believe exists. Like are they getting a lot, or a little, etc.

And like I said... as an exercise for you, go count the $ signs on the front page of Skeptic.com

I'm skeptical you can find any woo page with more. That is why the dollar argument that you are touting is pretty lame.

I was interested to see what you had to say about PEAR and the money, so indeed I did read that particular post.

PEAR's list of supporters are on the PEAR website, if you care to look. Their details are readily available on the Internet. And I doubt that anyone could invent a more interesting set of sponsors for a research group...

So, are you suggesting that PEAR's "supporters" do NOT provide them with financial support? That they are simply a bunch of enigmatic billionaires and well-funded institutions who do little more than send them letters of encouragement and a woo club badge each year? That PEAR has managed to beg, borrow or steal premises for 25+ years in one of the USA's premier tertiary institutions (which, incidentally, I expect comes at an enormously expensive premium) purely on the good graces of the board of that university? When funds and premises are scarce enough for all the other more viable faculties?

Ahem. Excuse me while I laugh incedulously.

But perhaps we can all stand to be educated. Where do YOU think all the funding for PEAR has come from all these years?

 

[Robin]

Thanks Robin for actualy showing something! It is hard to get that round these parts.

I think we'd need to also calculate the significance bands, like the GCP folk do, to interpret what is going on. Yes, the random walk will stray from 0 and that is not surprising, but how far from 0 until significance is declared?

I can't find how they calculate the significance bands though. Seems like it would be a horrendous calculation.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
[...] the combined Z score is highly significant, but we'd expect it to not be.

Who's "we"?

I would expect it not to be "significant," if physical RNGs were perfect. But they aren't. So I don't.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Robin
I can't find how they calculate the significance bands though. Seems like it would be a horrendous calculation.

The sum of the squares of n independent standard normal variables has a chi-square distribution with n degrees of freedom.

But, of course, then you need to assume that their z scores really would be normal and independent in the absence of paranormal influences.

I'd much prefer a resampling type of analysis that doesn't make those assumptions. The GCP has a list of "global events," and their calculation of a p-value is based on the RNG data gathered during those events. (By definition, p-values less than, say, 0.01 would, if calculated correctly, happen only 1 time out of 100.) To see whether their calculated p-value is actually as rare as it claims to be, they should redo the same calculation repeatedly---but use, on each repetition, the RNG data from randomly chosen time intervals of the same number and lengths as the global events on their list. If, for example, their originally calculated "p-value" is 0.01, but it turns out that in a full tenth of the repetitions, rather than in just a hundredth, the similarly calculated "p-value" is less than 0.01, then the true p-value is 0.1 rather than 0.01.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't have much confidence anymore in non-peer-reviewed non-journal articles, many of which aren't even spell checked, hosted on a site beloning to a person known to be hostile to the subjects being written about, written mainly by anonymous people with no credentials in the fields they are writing about, and some deliberately poking fun at their subjects.

We are all aware of your hatred and envy of SkepticReport, but that doesn't change the fact: You have in the past claimed to have read the article, even discussed its contents, but can't remember anything about it now.

Or, perhaps you simply blotted it out? Wanted it to go away?

 

[CFLarsen]

And like I said... as an exercise for you, go count the $ signs on the front page of Skeptic.com

I'm skeptical you can find any woo page with more. That is why the dollar argument that you are touting is pretty lame.

There is a lot more money in skepticism than in Woo-Land???

 

[CFLarsen]

Good info, but we are talking about it being linked to their name (ie. the word "Princeton" is in the name), not that they are necessarily on Princeton's payroll.

What is the GCP's official affiliation with Princeton University?

 

[T'ai Chi]

We are all aware of your hatred and envy of SkepticReport, but that doesn't change the fact: You have in the past claimed to have read the article, even discussed its contents, but can't remember anything about it now.

Or, perhaps you simply blotted it out? Wanted it to go away?

Nice attempt at villification. I point out flaws (no peer review (or as you claim 'the whole world' ), little experts, not even corrected for typos, articles that poke fun, hosted by someone known to be hostile towards anomaly claims, no posting of reader corrections and comments, etc) and you emotionally claim I "hate" it.

It must really have hit home.

And like I have said before, some articles are good, and some are not.

Please, prove the person behind skepticreport.com is not really a pseudoskeptic in skeptic's clothing, and answer the question of 'what is the evidence of specific harm being done to that 5 year old girl that got handcuffed', unless you believe that others should do as you say but not as you do.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There is a lot more money in skepticism than in Woo-Land???

You're changing the topic entirely. I specifically mentioned all the $ signs on skeptic.com, and wondered if anyone could find a "woo" site with more $ signs.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What is the GCP's official affiliation with Princeton University?

Why don't you tell us.

All I am saying is that if there is, or is not, or there was, an official connection with Princeton, the name "Princeton" is linked with PEAR.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Who's "we"?

ie theory tells us.

I would expect it not to be "significant," if physical RNGs were perfect. But they aren't. So I don't.

Do the RNGs pass the DIEHARD tests?

 

[CFLarsen]

You're changing the topic entirely. I specifically mentioned all the $ signs on skeptic.com, and wondered if anyone could find a "woo" site with more $ signs.

No, you did not. You clearly wanted to cast suspicion on a skeptical site. Something you do when you get a chance.

You are perfectly aware that there is a lot more money in woo sites. You are not fooling anyone.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why don't you tell us.

I don't know. I can't find any. That's why I ask.

You claim to have studied these data. You believe that they are sound. You are the one who claims that they show something we can't explain. You are the one touting "Princeton", so you must be very interested in finding out. Why don't you tell us?

All I am saying is that if there is, or is not, or there was, an official connection with Princeton, the name "Princeton" is linked with PEAR.

Do you think that it in any way lends credibility to GCP?

 

[jj]

It is not up to me to show proof (and you mean "evidence", not "proof"; *sigh*, will you ever understand the difference?) that Stimpy is not right, as you stupidly believe.

In other words, you wish to assert that you're right, but you show no evidence, none at all, yet you demand evidence from the skeptic that points out your lack of evidence.

Until you produce evidence that Stimpy's trivial dismissal of the whole mess is wrong, you're the one shouldering the entire burden. Every time you refuse it, you show your contempt for both the rules of evidence and the scientific method.

Now, about your dishonest, malicious quibbling about "proof". Stimpy handed you an informal proof. That's "proof" as in mathematical, that's what Stimpy has given you. That's what you have ignored. Have any counter-proof of yours? Have any refutation? Nope, you don't. All you can do is maliciously quibble about the word "proof".

Got any evidence?

Got any proof?

(sound of one hand clapping)

 

[CFLarsen]

Do the RNGs pass the DIEHARD tests?

Can the RNGs be shielded from the effect they are supposed to detect?

No?

Gee, you got a big problem...