Global Consciousness Project

[paintedbird]

I ran across this article and vaguely recalled GCP from a few years back. It looked like this would be the Forum to add this to even if it is in the realm of pseudo-science. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649#

 

[Dymanic]

The first (and possibly the last) question I have is in regard to this:

One of these new technologies was a humble-looking black box known was a Random Event Generator (REG). This used computer technology to generate two numbers - a one and a zero - in a totally random sequence, rather like an electronic coin-flipper.

I want an explanation for what exactly goes on inside that mysterious and wonderful black box, and until I see an answer, I'm not even interested in anything else they have to say. (I have a feeling that I'll be even less interested after I hear the answer, but I'd still like to hear it, if only for the entertainment value).

 

[CFLarsen]

An evening with Dean Radin

They select their data. If it fits, they will hail it as evidence. If it doesn't, they will summarily discard it.

The "eggs" (REG) are not calibrated. Therefore, we cannot know when they record something significant.

The sheer incompetence of these people....

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Nice article, Claus.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If they wanted to "really" test that "mental domain" they should be taking measures of human brains or something like that. Taking thousands of those measures a day would be more like what they are trying to find.

Not that they would, then, find anything interesting

 

[T'ai Chi]

An evening with Dean Radin

That article is mere testimony.

They select their data.

Please give a specific example or two, with mathematics, in detail for all to see. Or, you can keep being vague.

The "eggs" (REG) are not calibrated.

The REG's are shown to produce numbers that pass tests for non-randomness.

How do you suggest they be "calibrated"? Make some useful suggestions. Don't just complain.

 

[Luke T.]

I ran across this article and vaguely recalled GCP from a few years back. It looked like this would be the Forum to add this to even if it is in the realm of pseudo-science. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649#

I heard of the Planetary Meditation Grid a few years ago, and ever since I have just loved the sound of that. I use the expression from time to time in a satirical way.

What the believers in these things don't realize is that I have neutralized the Planetary Meditation Grid (or GCP, if you wish) with a giant Negative Vibe Generator in my attic. I keep it well-maintained and running at all times.

What's really cool is that my NVG is powered by the Planetary Meditation Grid. The more these people meditate and think touchy-feely things, the higher wattage output of my NVG. It's a zero sum point energy perpetual motion quantum mechanical closed circuit. Beautiful!

That's why these experiments look the same as random chance.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The first (and possibly the last) question I have is in regard to this:
I want an explanation for what exactly goes on inside that mysterious and wonderful black box, and until I see an answer, I'm not even interested in anything else they have to say. (I have a feeling that I'll be even less interested after I hear the answer, but I'd still like to hear it, if only for the entertainment value).

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html

Additionally, from that article

"They are subjected to calibration procedures based on large samples, typically a million or more trials, each the sum of 200 bits. "

Sounds like they are calibrated. Claus still claims "The "eggs" (REG) are not calibrated".

 

[Dymanic]

Yeah, thanks jzs. I dug that out too. Kind of cool, actually, first I'd heard of it. Now I'm ready with my next question: how much does one cost?

 

[CurtC]

Since these things started registering strange numbers at 6:40am EDT on Sept 11, 2001, the obvious conclusion is that they caused the horrific events of that day. These things should be outlawed.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Now I'm ready with my next question: how much does one cost?

One? There are 3 types of REGS.

"The Global Consciousness Project uses three different random event generators (REG or RNG)"

The PEAR Portable REG, the Mindsong MicroREG, and the Orion RNG. I have no idea how much the first two cost, but, from the link, it looks like the Orion is around $600 (http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/order.html).

I'm not sure if one gets a loaner REG if you sign up to participate in the GCP project, or not.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nice article, Claus.

Thanks!

 

[CFLarsen]

That article is mere testimony.

It doesn't claim to be anything else. It's precisely the same as when reporters report from such a meeting. Is that bad? Is that wrong?

How would you go about writing an article about such a meeting?

Do I say anything that is factually not true, Justin? Do I draw the wrong conclusions?

Please give a specific example or two, with mathematics, in detail for all to see. Or, you can keep being vague.

Had you read the article, you would have discovered that I do actually give examples. Very specific. Not "vague".

The REG's are shown to produce numbers that pass tests for non-randomness.

Really? That's quite a claim, Justin. How were they shielded off from this "global consciousness" thingie?

How do you suggest they be "calibrated"? Make some useful suggestions. Don't just complain.

That's the point, Justin: Since they purport to record the effects of a "global consciousness", they can't be calibrated. How does one go about shielding an all-pervasive "global consciousness" off? Tell 6 billion people to stop living for a few hours while they run some tests?

 

[CFLarsen]

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html

Additionally, from that article

"They are subjected to calibration procedures based on large samples, typically a million or more trials, each the sum of 200 bits. "

Sounds like they are calibrated. Claus still claims "The "eggs" (REG) are not calibrated".

How are they shielded off from the "global consciousness"? You need to explain that, if you want to claim they are calibrated.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Is that bad? Is that wrong? How would you go about writing an article about such a meeting? Do I say anything that is factually not true, Justin? Do I draw the wrong conclusions?

Typical 'answering' by asking 5x as many questions. Tactic ignored.

Had you read the article,

You often use that pathetic tactic of casting doubt if someone read the article they are critical of. Yes, I read it, and I read a lot of testimony and absolutely no analyis of the actual data was presented. That is a fact. From a skeptical standpoint it was just your subjective view of the evening and the readers are required to take your word on the events. For example, how can we verify what you said took place? Please, I want to know the answer.

Really? That's quite a claim, Justin. How were they shielded off from this "global consciousness" thingie?

I didn't claim they were shielded off, that is your strawman. I would like it if you could have a discussion without logical fallacies.

That's the point, Justin: Since they purport to record the effects of a "global consciousness", they can't be calibrated.

That is your claim. Where is your evidence?

I think you are not understanding what calibration means. It means to see if they are passing RNG tests. They do, so they are "calibrated". Anything else, your theories of what a global consciousness can and cannot do, what they "purport", shutting it on or off, shielding, etc., are besides the point. They've been calibrated so your claim of them not being calibrated is factually 100% incorrect.

 

[T'ai Chi]

How are they shielded off from the "global consciousness"? You need to explain that, if you want to claim they are calibrated.

No, you claimed calibration is not possible. You need to explain why. Just asking 'because how do you turn off the global consciousness?' doesn't cut it.

I think you are not understanding what calibration means. It means to see if the RNG's are passing RNG tests. They do, so they are "calibrated". Anything else, your theories of what a global consciousness can and cannot do, what they "purport", shutting it on or off, shielding, etc., are besides the point. They've been calibrated so your claim of them not being calibrated is factually 100% incorrect.

 

[CFLarsen]

Typical 'answering' by asking 5x as many questions. Tactic ignored.

If you are not able to focus on more than one question at a time, let's take them one by one, then:

Is it bad to write an account of the meeting?

You often use that pathetic tactic of casting doubt if someone read the article they are critical of. Yes, I read it, and I read a lot of testimony and absolutely no analyis of the actual data was presented. That is a fact. From a skeptical standpoint it was just your subjective view of the evening and the readers are required to take your word on the events. For example, how can we verify what you said took place? Please, I want to know the answer.

Not pathetic, Justin. And you are perfectly aware of how you can verify what happened: Here, I'll quote for you:

Radin gave several examples of how GCP had detected "global consciousness". One was the day O.J. Simpson was acquitted of double-murder. We were shown a graph where - no doubt about that - the data formed a nice ascending curve in the minutes after the pre-show started, with cameras basically waiting for the verdict to be read. And yes, there was a nice, ascending curve in the minutes after the verdict was read.

However, about half an hour before the verdict, there was a similar curve ascending for no apparent reason. Radin's quick explanation before moving on to the next slide?

"I don't know what happened there."

It was not to be the last time we heard that answer.
Source

You can find the same graph on page 167 in Radin's book "The conscious universe", which I know you have and even claim to have read. So, there's no excuse, Justin: You know damn well that it is not just my "subjective view of the evening". I back it up with facts.

I didn't claim they were shielded off, that is your strawman. I would like it if you could have a discussion without logical fallacies.

Are they shielded off, yes or no?

That is your claim. Where is your evidence?

I am asking: How does one shield off a "global consciousness" that is supposed to pervade everything?

I think you are not understanding what calibration means. It means to see if they are passing RNG tests. They do, so they are "calibrated". Anything else, your theories of what a global consciousness can and cannot do, what they "purport", shutting it on or off, shielding, etc., are besides the point. They've been calibrated so your claim of them not being calibrated is factually 100% incorrect.

You clearly don't understand what calibrating means. Just because they pass a "test" does not mean that they are calibrated.

Think of how a thermometer is calibrated: We know that water boils at 100C at one atmosphere's pressure. So, we stick a thermometer into a pot of boiling water and reads it. If it says 100C, then we are half way there. We then stick it in freezer, where we know the temperature, and reads it again. And so on: We calibrate measuring tools by comparing them to already known circumstances.

I want to know how you can do that with an RNG that is under constant influence of a "global consciousness".

 

[Zep]

No, you claimed calibration is not possible. You need to explain why. Just asking 'because how do you turn off the global consciousness?' doesn't cut it.

I think you are not understanding what calibration means. It means to see if the RNG's are passing RNG tests. They do, so they are "calibrated". Anything else, your theories of what a global consciousness can and cannot do, what they "purport", shutting it on or off, shielding, etc., are besides the point. They've been calibrated so your claim of them not being calibrated is factually 100% incorrect.

Err, no. You are wrong here and Claus is right. Let me try to explain by way of analogy.

Suppose you were testing the hiss from two different sets of speakers in a car. You wanted to know which one was "quieter", had less hiss. But while you were testing, the car was being run through a carwash, then through heavy traffic, all with the radio on full blast. Out of all the measurements you get from in or near the speakers, which of it is the "hiss" you are trying to measure? It is literally drowned out by the background noise from and around the speakers. To get valid results you need to do it in a perfectly quiet place, don't you. Eliminate all but one variable in the test.

Now, back to PEAR's REGs. They are supposed to produce a perfectly random series of bits when they are not being influenced by "global consciousness". When they ARE being influenced, the random series of bits they produce supposedly becomes non-random - that's the nature of the experiment they are running: to find that non-randomness.

The problem is that this "global consciousness" cannot be turned off. It is omnipresent and ubiquitous, and therefore it MUST affect the REGs all the time. There is no switch to eliminate it, no lead shield thick enough, etc. So how can the REGs be "calibrated" in the first place under all this external influence of the very effect it is supposed to be measureing...?? And if they can't be calibrated, what good is the data they ultimately produce?

More to the point, if the calibrated state of a REG is no different from the data-collecting state, where is this supposed non-randomness coming from AFTER calibration that is being touted to the heavens? What IS the difference? Assuming the premise of the testing is sound (and that's a stretch in acceptance anyway), there's two possibilities: (a) the bit-stream generated is actually non-random after all; or (b) wishful thinking by means of data-mining.

Since PEAR are involved in this, I would refer you once again to their own paper admitting loss of effect following more extensive analysis of their own data. This may be a recurring theme with them...

 

[Carn]

Please give a specific example or two, with mathematics, in detail for all to see. Or, you can keep being vague.

You miss here something.
To show that someone is doing something wrong with his selection of data, it is enough to show, that he does not give any good reasons for his selection of data.
No complicated math is needed, to show that someone didn't use math properly at all.

To show that the GCP does something wrong with his data, it is enough to ask why they look at the curve of 9/11 starting at 6.45am(or so) and why they do not look at the curve starting at 4.00 am or starting at 8.25 am. If there is nowhere something in their publications, that is related to such questions, you can safely ignore their conclusions, until they have an answer.



But what would disprove the GCP as a whole is showing that a curve derived from the output of a random number generator, will around a certain time always have several points, from which on the curve crosses the line, that marks the 1 in 20 chance, at some time in the future.

Ignoring this possibility seems to be the main GCP mistake: If my guess is correct, you will find in any random curve on any date something that looks like non random behaviour.
The GCP people could of course identify this problem, if they would compare their curves from "important" days with curves from "unimportant" days. I didn't find anything on their website, where they presented lots of curves, that indicated, that they even thought about this problem. Furthermore CFLarsen's questions mentioned in the article point exactly in the same direction and the GCP "guru" was even unable to think about them, likely he has never considered them.

This gives me the conclusion, that GCP are a bunch of incompetent scientist. And the reason why this "field of research" draws so many incompetent scientists, is that competent scientists and talented students recognize the problems and prefer to spend their life with useful and promising research.


It is even quite likely, that my guess has already been proven, then the whole GCP would be disproven, as they do not employ any method to exclude such random non-random looking intervals.

Does anyone know about some prove,
that in any big enough set of perfectly random
data there are always some intervals, that show non random behaviour?


Carn

 

[T'ai Chi]

Now, back to PEAR's REGs. They are supposed to produce a perfectly random series of bits when they are not being influenced by "global consciousness". When they ARE being influenced, the random series of bits they produce supposedly becomes non-random - that's the nature of the experiment they are running: to find that non-randomness.

The problem is that this "global consciousness" cannot be turned off. It is omnipresent and ubiquitous,

You fail to see the point. If you had read what I wrote, to use you-know-who's line, all calibrated means is that it passed these DIEHARD tests. That's it. No 'are we able to turn the field off', no 'there is no way to shield it', etc. type of meaningless dodges. RNG calibration means they passed these tests.