Global Consciousness Project

[CFLarsen]

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.

You still don't get it. The tests were worthless. Try to understand Zep's car speaker analogy.

 

[Carn]

RNG calibration means they passed these tests.

The "eggs" did not pass all tests for non-randomness, that is obvious.

Why is it obvious?
The GNC people claim that there eggs produce sometimes non-random numbers, therefore their eggs are not random number generators.

You see, as soon as you detect non-randomness in your random number generator, you know it failed and is no random number generator.
This is a tricky problem for GCP people, to prove anything, they first have to show that they actually have random number generators - but then they start arguing, that their random number generators show non-random behaviour, that is a contradiction.


Carn

 

[Zep]

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.

I read what YOU wrote, and you are still way wrong. It's such a basic and obvious oversight in their methodology - one even a reasonable school student would notice. In order to calibrate the EGGs to provide a baseline from which to measure changes in randomness, the software must be run. The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running. Therefore the software can NEVER be calibrated. End of story.

Let's get it straight: Given the supposed nature of the testing instruments and the subject under test, there are NO methods that can reliably calibrate ANY instruments in order to measure the subject. None. Nada.

This means that these people are deluding themselves, and if so, what faith can you put in the accuracy and robustness of their outcomes? Alternatively they are deliberately running these "pseudo-experiments" for some other reason, which is in itself patent scientific fraud for a start.

Personally I think it's FAR more likely they are trying to fool the public into believing they are doing good science. My follow-up question would then be: Why try to fool the public, regardless of scientific dismissal of this as a crock of crap? I have my own answers to this, but you can draw your own conclusions.

 

[amherst]

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?

The Global Consciousness Project is set up to test what happens to REGs when the minds of many people are simultaneously focused on a single thing. When the global consciousness is not focused on something, the REGs are predicted to stay random, and not be influenced---this is when they are calibrated. When the consciousness of many is focused on the same thing, the predicted effect is non-randomness. Order among minds is predicted to cause the same in REGs.

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?

The difference is that during the control state, group focusing isn't occurring, while in the experimental state it is.

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...

In the RedNova article skeptic Chris French was quoted as saying, "The Global Consciousness Project has generated some very intriguing results that cannot be readily dismissed. I'm involved in similar work to see if we get the same results. We haven't managed to do so yet but it's only an early experiment. The jury's still out." French, like most members of this forum, is a hardcore skeptic. Though, unlike most, his skepticism didn't cause him to blindly dismiss the research he was commenting on. I think he'd agree with me that the majority of the arguments that have been made against the GCP on this forum are nothing but more fine examples of dogmatism.

amherst

 

[Pragmatist]

The Global Consciousness Project is set up to test what happens to REGs when the minds of many people are simultaneously focused on a single thing. When the global consciousness is not focused on something, the REGs are predicted to stay random, and not be influenced---this is when they are calibrated. When the consciousness of many is focused on the same thing, the predicted effect is non-randomness. Order among minds is predicted to cause the same in REGs.

Fine. So how do you know when large numbers of minds are not focussed on a single thing? And in advance too - presumably you have to arrange the calibration test at least somewhat in advance.

As for large numbers of minds focussed on the same thing, I guess you have to eliminate holy days, because in religions large numbers of people focus on the same thing at the same time. The worst of them are the Muslims because they all focus several times a day. So we have to find a non-Muslim window at least, because there are a lot of Muslims. Forget Saturdays (Jews/Sabbath) and Sundays (Christians). And then we have to make sure there are no major baseball/football etc., etc., games going on anywhere in the world. Oh, and we have to make sure there aren't any really popular shows on TV anywhere at that time. We have to make sure there are no adverse weather events, hurricanes, tornados, volcanos, earthquakes anywhere on earth. And we have to politely request everybody in battle anywhere to please stop fighting wars until our REG's are ready. We have to cancel all elections. And we definitely have to stop all state and national lotteries. We have to make sure it's not night with the moon out, lots of people focus on the moon.

We also have to prevent solar flares - O.K. people don't focus on them but they may affect the generator circuitry.

And so on. Yes, it must be real easy to calibrate those REG's!

 

[T'ai Chi]

You still don't get it. The tests were worthless. Try to understand Zep's car speaker analogy.

You and Zep are wrong in saying they weren't calibrated.

If you had read my post, calibration simply means passing those tests. And they did. Therefore, they were calibrated.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The "eggs" did not pass all tests for non-randomness, that is obvious.

Why is it obvious?

It is not obvious. The Orion, for example, did in fact pass those tests. The tests in question are Marsaglia's DIEHARD tests.

You see, as soon as you detect non-randomness in your random number generator, you know it failed and is no random number generator.

It is possible to get extremely long and extremely short runs in a RNG or a coin flip, etc., yet the process is still random.

 

[Pragmatist]

It is possible to get extremely long and extremely short runs in a RNG or a coin flip, etc., yet the process is still random.

True, but...

From the technical data of one of the RNG manufacturers, regarding the randomness of their generators:

http://www.randomnumbergenerator.nl/rng/home.html

Due to the limited knowledge we have of the psi phenomenon we cannot specify a control condition which is guaranteed psi-free. There fore one might occasionally also find deviations in the no-subject condition. Just report these.

Even the manufacturer thinks it might be a problem.

 

[T'ai Chi]

one even a reasonable school student would notice.

Ad hom.

The software is always being influenced by the "global conciousness" whenever it is running. Therefore the software can NEVER be calibrated. End of story.

If you had read what I wrote, ALL calibrated means is that the tests for randomness were passed. That is all. Any speculation about what the hypothetical global consciousness can or cannot effect are moot. To say they are not calibrated is false. And the RNG's are HARDWARE, not software. Please, read that entire paragraph again.

Personally I think it's FAR more likely they are trying to fool the public into believing they are doing good science.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, they do make their data available http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html). Why don't you analyze it instead of continue your embarassing non-scientific armchair speculations?

 

[Zep]

Ad hom.

About you, no. About them, yes.

If you had read what I wrote, ALL calibrated means is that the tests for randomness were passed. That is all. Any speculation about what the hypothetical global consciousness can or cannot effect are moot. To say they are not calibrated is false. And the RNG's are HARDWARE, not software. Please, read that entire paragraph again.

(I wonder if YOU have read it yourself, but anyway...)

So... You are agreeing that their definition of "random" is basically that the box turns on successfully?

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, they do make their data available http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html). Why don't you analyze it instead of continue your embarassing non-scientific armchair speculations?

I'm now fairly certain you have been "blinded by science" here, jzs. That reference you gave was to the analysis that has been applied to the data after it was obtained. Now, given that the experiment premise and design, equipment design, and data-gathering process is suspect anyway, how much credibility do YOU think should be given to these analysis results?

Let me put it more simply for you so you understand: GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. OK?

And given that you know nothing of my education or what I do for a living, that's not an ad hom either, is it!

 

[T'ai Chi]

About you, no. About them, yes.

Ad hom is a logical fallacy, Zep.

So... You are agreeing that their definition of "random" is basically that the box turns on successfully?

For the upteenth time, that is the definition of 'calibration' in the sense of calibrating a RNG.

I'm now fairly certain you have been "blinded by science" here, jzs.

Ad hom.

They make their data available at http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html. Are you going to analyze it?

That reference you gave was to the analysis that has been applied to the data after it was obtained.

I would be interested in hearing how one analyzes data before the data is obtained.

Let me put it more simply for you so you

Ad hom.

Are you going to analyze their data, Zep?

 

[Zep]

Ad hom is a logical fallacy, Zep.

No, in this case it refers simply to the act of "name calling". Using that as a method of argument is called "argumentum ad hominem", which is indeed a logical fallacy.

For the upteenth time, that is the definition of 'calibration' in the sense of calibrating a RNG.

OK, so you accept their definition of "calibration", even though it is no such thing. Fine. In which case please expect your car to tune and repair itself from all damage any time you turn it on.

Ad hom.

They make their data available at http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html. Are you going to analyze it?

You have no idea what you are asking, do you. This IS an analysis you have referenced. It is an analysis of their own raw data. To analyze analyses is doing a meta-analysis. What I suspect you REALLY want me to do is analyse their raw data again - that is, parallel this analysis. Since the raw data is patent crap from a totally dubious process, why would I do this?

I would be interested in hearing how one analyzes data before the data is obtained.

Tell us all you know about setting baselines of measurement.

Ad hom.

Are you going to analyze their data, Zep?

When it is worth anyone's time, yes I will.

Incidentally, your name isn't Kumar on alternate days, by any chance?

 

[T'ai Chi]

OK, so you accept their definition of "calibration", even though it is no such thing. Fine.

I accept their, and anyone who works with RNGs's, definition, and they did calibrate them, since to calibrate a RNG means it passes these tests. Fine.

In which case please expect your car to tune and repair itself from all damage any time you turn it on.

Non sequitor.

[]b
You have no idea what you are asking, do you.

[/b]

Ad hom.

This IS an analysis you have referenced. It is an analysis of their own raw data.

No, I did not reference an analysis. From that page, go to the http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data/extract.html link. You can download the raw data. Will you do it and will you analyze it?

What I suspect you REALLY want me to do is analyse their raw data again

Again? You haven't done it yet. But yes, it would be nice if you analyze their actual data, as I have been suggesting, instead of theorizing on some hypothesized global fields' characteristics and dismissing the whole thing based on bias with no actual inspection.

Since the raw data is patent crap from a totally dubious process, why would I do this?

It is merely output from RNG's. Why do you dismiss it? Do you dismiss data from ALL and ANY RNG's? No?

Tell us all you know about setting baselines of measurement.

You didn't answer my request. You criticized them for analyzing the data after it was obtained. So I requested to know just how one goes about analyzing data before the data is obtained. You then "answered" me with a request of your own. Why don't you try answering my request first?

Incidentally, your name isn't Kumar on alternate days, by any chance?

Ad hom.

 

[Zep]

Jzs, here's a few random numbers I just generated. Don't ask how or where I got them, just analyse them for me, OK?

111111111111111111111111110000000000011111111101101010101000000000101101010101010101111111111111111000000000000000111111111111110101010101111111111111101010101010101010101011010101001010100111111111111010101010101010101111111111010101010

Now this set, same method.

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

And now these, same method.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

DON'T ASK WHERE THEY CAME FROM! DON'T ASK IF I CALIBRATED MY DATA GENERATOR! JUST BELIEVE ME - THIS IS GREAT DATA!

 

[T'ai Chi]

Jzs, here's a few random numbers I just generated. Don't ask how or where I got them, just analyse them for me, OK?
(snip)

"Analyze them for" you, how exactly? What are you asking me to do with them?

Zep, will you analyze their raw data or not? Their RNG's have passed these tests. You are asking me to look at your artificially constructed examples. On the other hand, I'm asking you to look at their actual data. ie. data that is from their real ongoing study, not aritifically constructed data that is only used for 'stumpers' in threads... So no, I won't humor your artifically constructed examples.

Will you get serious and look at their actual data?

DON'T ASK WHERE THEY CAME FROM! DON'T ASK IF I CALIBRATED MY DATA GENERATOR! JUST BELIEVE ME - THIS IS GREAT DATA!

No to all of those. The CGP people tell you where they came from, even offering schematics of these RNG's. The RNG's manufacturer says that it has passed the DIEHARD tests- they have been calibrated. Moreover, one can verify that for themselves.

The difference is, the CGP people tell you where and how they got them. With you, I have no way of knowing what RNG you are using, if it is hardware or a PRNG software, or if you just typed those in (more likely), nor do you allow me to get more data from your RNG. What you are doing is not scientific inquiry.

 

[Zep]

I accept their, and anyone who works with RNGs's, definition, and they did calibrate them, since to calibrate a RNG means it passes these tests. Fine.

[ad-hom]You're a twit.[/ad-hom]

Non sequitor.

Non-answer.

Ad hom.

No, I did not reference an analysis. From that page, go to the http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data/extract.html link. You can download the raw data. Will you do it and will you analyze it?

Well gee, Slick! THEY sure think the page you referenced is about "summaries and analysis"!

Introduction

The data collection and analytical software remain under development, but beginning with 1998-08-05, a number of displays in table and graphic form have been available. The following remarks are intended to help with the interpretation of these data summaries, and this page will be updated as we add other perspectives for analysis and display. To see recent and current analyses relevant to specific hypotheses, go to the current results page.

Want to have a rethink about that?

Again? You haven't done it yet. But yes, it would be nice if you analyze their actual data, as I have been suggesting, instead of theorizing on some hypothesized global fields' characteristics and dismissing the whole thing based on bias with no actual inspection.

Your insistence does nothing to make their raw data any less useless.

It is merely output from RNG's. Why do you dismiss it? Do you dismiss data from ALL and ANY RNG's? No?

Slippery-slope argument, Slick. Try again!

You didn't answer my request. You criticized them for analyzing the data after it was obtained. So I requested to know just how one goes about analyzing data before the data is obtained. You then "answered" me with a request of your own. Why don't you try answering my request first?

OK, I analysed it.

Now tell us all you know about setting baselines of measurement, Slick.

Ad hom.

Standard response when you don't like the answers, Slick?

Are you SURE you aren't channelling Kumar or something? You're getting awful fixated on the results although the whole process being employed is patent tripe right out of the box...

 

[T'ai Chi]

You're a twit

Ad hom.

The fact is that they did calibrate the RNGs, since to calibrate a RNG means it passes these tests.

Well gee, Slick! THEY sure think the page you referenced is about "summaries and analysis"!

The quote you typed, "summaries and analysis" isn't even on the page. I searched for it, no match.

The page is about summaries and data access. One can download their raw data for analysis, as well as link to summaries of their results so far.

Want to have a rethink about that?

Zep, let me remind you, you said, after I posted that link, that

"This IS an analysis you have referenced."

which is entirely mistaken.

There is absolutely no analysis presented on that page (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data_access.html), and anyone can verify that.

Around the middle of that page, there is a link (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/data/extract.html) where anyone can access their raw data. This is what I have constantly been directing you toward.

Your insistence does nothing to make their raw data any less useless.

It is merely output from RNG's. You have yet to coherently explain why analyzing RNG output is "useless".

OK, I analysed it.

I'm sure you have.. Please show us your work. "Statistics on the table, please".

Are you SURE you aren't channelling Kumar or something? You're getting awful fixated on the results although the whole process being employed is patent tripe right out of the box...

Ad hom. And 4 "slicks", whatever that means. Please, stay focused, stay skeptical and scientific.

 

[Oleron]

Can someone please tell me what the supposed connection is between global conciousness and a black box spewing out 1's and 0's?

It's like trying to measure sound with a slide rule.

It reminds me of the old urban myth - If the Chinese all jumped at the same time, it would knock the earth of its axis.

It is just as valid to speculate that milk goes sour quicker when all minds are focussed on a single event. Maybe we need an experiment to test this. 'The global sourness ratio'.

Yeah right.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Global Consciousness Project is set up to test what happens to REGs when the minds of many people are simultaneously focused on a single thing. When the global consciousness is not focused on something, the REGs are predicted to stay random, and not be influenced---this is when they are calibrated. When the consciousness of many is focused on the same thing, the predicted effect is non-randomness. Order among minds is predicted to cause the same in REGs.

But the REGs are not staying random when GC is not "focused". Radin's own data show this.

The difference is that during the control state, group focusing isn't occurring, while in the experimental state it is.

Just what is "group focusing"? It clearly isn't when 9-11 happened, because the fluctuations begin before the attack started.

In the RedNova article skeptic Chris French was quoted as saying, "The Global Consciousness Project has generated some very intriguing results that cannot be readily dismissed. I'm involved in similar work to see if we get the same results. We haven't managed to do so yet but it's only an early experiment. The jury's still out." French, like most members of this forum, is a hardcore skeptic. Though, unlike most, his skepticism didn't cause him to blindly dismiss the research he was commenting on. I think he'd agree with me that the majority of the arguments that have been made against the GCP on this forum are nothing but more fine examples of dogmatism.

The eggs are not calibrated, OK? Whatever comes out of them is worthless.

 

[CFLarsen]

You and Zep are wrong in saying they weren't calibrated.

If you had read my post, calibration simply means passing those tests. And they did. Therefore, they were calibrated.

Calibration
A set of gradations that show positions or values.
Dictionary.com

What "positions" or "values" do these eggs show, Justin? Do you honestly think that the data that comes out of the eggs is of value?