Global Consciousness Project

[athon]

When the output is looked at on the days there was a formal hypothesis made, the results are generally significant, the GCP site says.

Ok, fair enough. But here is the core of the problem; you have a large string of numbers, for simplicity we'll use the coin analogy, and your results over one week contain a thousand flips, resulting in either heads or tails.

From the results, selection has been based on a connection between auspicious days of the week, say monday and wednesday, when some allegedly 'non-random' strings came up. Say, a run of 50 heads. Overall, that same coin is not seen to be 'non-random', because it was 'calibrated', right?

So then on monday and wednesday, some world-significant events were found. And a connection made.

What we are saying is this; there is no way a negative control could be made. Are there non-random strings on all non-auspicious days?

If you get those results (100 heads in a row), you'd start, I hope long before, to think the coin was not a fair coin, that is, that there is something going on. The probabiltiy of that is .5^100, which is darn tiny, and is strong evidence against the coin having probability(heads) = .5.

The probability, as of July 2004 of seeing the RNG output on days associated with the formal hypotheses is .000076, which is fairly tiny. If the RNG 'coin' was fair, we'd expect this probabiltiy to be larger than .05 from what I understand.

How is the hypothesis determined? Again, over a large enough spread, the possibility of getting one hundred heads is reduced. I would be surprised over a massive number of flips to NOT see a large string. Hence, it is not really 'non-random'.

Confusion here can be negated by having a RNG shielded, so there is no external influence of any kind, and comparing to see if it remains consistently 'random' throughout.

You are not following a basic tenet of science. There is no, none, zip!, nada control here for comparison. Even if the coin is 'fair', you need to discount that a run of heads is not also a random run.

Think of it this way; any combination of one hundred coin flips is 'extremely unlikely' to happen. We pick a pattern (simply because of the assumption that said pattern cannot be non-random - itself erroneous, but I digress...), and ascertain that an influence had to occur to have that pattern manifest.

We cannot make that assumption unless there is something to compare it with.

Is that any clearer?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

You are not following a basic tenet of science.

Exactly. And that's what causes Justin so much trouble: Because the reason why he focuses on GCP is that, on the surface, it looks like science. Justin doesn't care about the carnival acts of psychics, healers or dowsers, he only wants to look at the men in white lab coats.

Who, unfortunately for him, do not do science.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
When the output is looked at on the days there was a formal hypothesis made, the results are generally significant, the GCP site says.

I think they should also look at the output from the other days, when they didn't expect anything unusual to happen. The behavior of the RNG on all those days would be a reasonable baseline for comparison. I've looked at their site a bit, and I believe that, currently, they are using "significant" to mean "significantly different from the theoretical behavior of an ideal RNG" rather than "significantly different from the actual long-term behavior of the actual RNG being used."

If their RNG occasionally acts flaky on days when a formal hypothesis was made, but it also occasionally acts flaky on days when no formal hypothesis was made, then all they've shown is that they have an occasionally flaky RNG. They haven't shown that their RNG is at all affected by the global consciousness which they hypothesized to be present on certain days.

For example, from one of their pages:

[Even w]hen it is feasible to take data in a given environment before and after the designated experimental segments, some of the surrounding time periods may themselves be subject to the same influences as the active segments. (Indeed, even in laboratory experiments there is evidence that traditional "control" data may not be immune to anomalous effects of consciousness.)

If your real data is similar to your control data, it may be that both have been anomalously affected by consciousness. It may also be that neither has been.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Claus, you are running from my challenge to you. The graph I presented, is the RNG that produced it performing statistically different from what is expected? Yes or No?

You said you cannot answer until I provided the number of times. Now that I did, you still aren't answering it it seems! Are you going to move the goal posts?

However, they leave out some events:

How do you suggest they choose events? Don't just complain, Claus, offer your suggestions for improvement.

Sound familiar?

E.g. I see an analysis of Earth Day 2001 (which is claimed to show GC), but not any analysis of Earth Day 2002, 2003, or 2004.

Please, Claus, show us their exact quote where, as you claim, they claimed that it shows GC. Their exact quote. Please. Or are you going to do a 'Kimpatsu' on me and tell me to find it to support your claim?

They analyzed 2001, 2000, and 1999 Earth Days for what it is worth. These must be the ones that were submitted to the formal hypothesis registry.

The RNGs are not calibrated. The output is worthless.

They RNGs pass the tests, therefore they are calibrated.

So if their data is "worthless" according to you, how can you possibly scientifically analyze their data? You just ignore it, brush it off as "worthless" without any scientific analysis. Feeel free to prove otherwise.

 

[Zep]

In your criticisms, you certainly are. For example, you won't even look at RNG output, because you say, 'because the GC exists, the RNG output is worthless'.

That is not a skeptical approach, Zep.

Or, am I wrong and you have looked at the RNG output? [/B]

What a maroon troll you are, jzs.

We started out discussing PEAR's methodologies (or lack thereof), and all you can do is attribute their pitifully obvious shortcomings to me when I point them out to you step by tiny, painful step. And to make it worse for yourself, you then try to dodge and weave and ignore the obvious conclusions. And even when I go to the trouble of explaining the logical situation as I believe it to be (i.e. no GC), you STILL think I'm not being skeptical.

Here, jzs. Let me spell it out for you in simple words of less than four letters each:

YOUARE ASADGIT.

 

[Zep]

Hey, wouldn't it be fun to have jzs on a PC helpdesk?

"Look, you stupid user! I'VE got a PC here just like yours and it's working fine. So yours must be too, OK? OK???"

 

[T'ai Chi]

What a maroon troll you are, jzs.
YOUARE ASADGIT.

Your emotional response doesn't do much for me.

The fact is, you won't even look at RNG output, because you say, 'because the GC exists, the RNG output is worthless'. You assume, for the purposes of debunking, that GC exists. Therefore, in your mind, you are justified in dismissing all of the RNG data.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Hey, wouldn't it be fun to have jzs on a PC helpdesk?

"Look, you stupid user! I'VE got a PC here just like yours and it's working fine. So yours must be too, OK? OK???"

Another emotional response from Zep. Anyone surprised?

Zep's approach: "If X exists, the data is bunk because X influences the data. Therefore, the data is not worth looking at, and I will never actually examine the data X produces."

 

[Pragmatist]

Hey, wouldn't it be fun to have jzs on a PC helpdesk?

Ever heard the phrase, "be careful what you wish for"?

Transcript of PC Helpdesk Conversation. A caller calls into a PC help desk manned by jzs:

caller: Uh..,hi...,I just wanted to say my PC isn't working can you help me?
jzs: Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: Huh? What claim? I just wanted to report that my PC wasn't working!
jzs: That is a claim. Do you have evidence to support it?
caller: What? Look, I just tested it and it wasn't working O.K.?
jzs: How did you test it?
caller: I switched it on and it passed the self-test but then it just stopped.
jzs: It passed the self-test therefore it's calibrated.
caller; Huh? Calibrated? I couldn't give a **** about whether it's calibrated, it's not working!
jzs: Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: Oh jeez...
jzs: Ad hom
caller: I don't care about your sexual preferences, what about my computer?
jzs: Ad hom
caller: Look, let's start again. My computer passes self-test but doesn't work otherwise, O.K.?
jzs: Your computer is calibrated. Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: You want me to provide evidence that my computer doesn't work?
jzs: Yes.
caller: Well, gee, it's right here in front of me and it isn't working! Do you want me to prove the sun is shining?
jzs: Yes.
caller: "Yes" what? You really want me to prove the sun is shining?
jzs: Yes.
caller: Why?
jzs: Evasion noted.
caller: Oh for christ's sake just look out the window!
jzs: Irrelevant. Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: (sarcastically) Which one? The one about the computer or the sun shining?
jzs: So you admit you made a claim. Both of them.
caller: Is there any point to this? This is a computer help line and you are supposed to be helping me!
jzs: Do you have evidence to support that claim Claus?
caller: Claus? Who's Claus? My name is Steve!
jzs: Do you have evidence to support your claim Claus?
caller: My name isn't Claus!
jzs: Why won't you just admit it Claus?
caller: Look, please just help me with my PC, I've just faxed you my ID, my name is Steve Jones, O.K.
jzs: Irrelevant Claus. Do you have evidence to support your claim?
caller: O.K. O.K. my name is Claus, happy now? Now will you just help me with my PC, please?
jzs: Thank you for admitting your error.
caller: Whatever. Now can we get back to the PC, it's not working, remember?
jzs: Do you have evidence to support your claim Claus?
caller: "^E*()^^Q"£^&^%&^$"%£$$$$"(())"__"!!!!!!
jzs: Ad hom
caller: Look, if I fax you the complete schematics of the PC, a detailed 200 page description of every single thing that has ever been done with it, the expert testimonies of 1000 computer engineers that it's not working, documentary evidence that it was run over by a truck etc., would you just possibly be prepared to accept that it's not friggin' working?
jzs: No. Irrelevant Claus.
caller: Sigh...O.K. Why do you think it is working?
jzs: Because it's calibrated.
caller: How does that prove it's working?
jzs: That is the definition of working, "calibrated" means it's working.
caller: You told me before that "calibrated" meant it passed the power on self-test.
jzs: Irrelevant Claus.
caller: Not very consistent are you?
jzs: Ad hom.
caller: O.K. I'm losing it, are you going to help me with my computer or not?
jzs: Yes Claus.
caller: Thank God for that! I'm glad you finally agree to help me!
jzs: Would you please show me where I said that Claus?
caller: You just said it!!!!! And why are you obsessed with Claus?
jzs: I'm not obsessed with Claus, Claus. And where did I say I would help you?
caller: Aaaarggghhh! I said, "are you going to help me with my computer or not" and you said, "Yes". O.K.?
jzs: Claus, you said, "are you going to help me with my computer or not" and I said, "Yes", meaning, "or not".
caller: Oh Christ! Why won't you help me?
jzs: Why should I?
caller: Because you are the PC help and support line, that's why!!!!
jzs: Do you have evidence to support that claim Claus?
caller: (strangled cry of desperation followed by click of phone hanging up)

And now for something completely different. A news flash, just in from CNN.

Camera pans to a scene outside an office building where police are bundling a giggling and twitching man in a straitjacket into a police car...

CNN Reporter: I'm reporting from the scene of a brutal slaying in Oregon. As you can see the police have the situation under control and have arrested the suspect. Details are still coming in but it appears that the suspect, one Steve Jones, broke into the offices of a PC supplier and gunned down one of their support personnel by firing 300 rounds into him at point blank range with a fully automatic rifle. People here are shocked, and the police say that it appears to be a motiveless killing, although they believe that the gunman is in fact clinically insane because he keeps giggling and twitching and insisting his name is "Claus". Police have stated that although the victim has not been formally identified, they believe him to be one Justin Smith. Little is known about Mr Smith so I'm going to try and catch one of his work colleagues...

Camera pans to a man who is giggling and twitching.

CNN Reporter: I believe you knew Mr Smith and worked with him for some time? You surely have some idea of the kind of person he was and the effect he had on people?
man: Yes.
CNN Reporter: And your name is?
man: Claus.
CNN Reporter: That's strange, the suspect insists his name is Claus too!
man: Everybody's name is Claus.
CNN Reporter: Mine isn't!
man: Do you have evidence to support your claim?
CNN Reporter: What? What claim? You claimed everybody's name is Claus!
man: Do you have evidence to support that claim?
......

 

[rwguinn]

Your emotional response doesn't do much for me.

The fact is, you won't even look at RNG output, because you say, 'because the GC exists, the RNG output is worthless'. You assume, for the purposes of debunking, that GC exists. Therefore, in your mind, you are justified in dismissing all of the RNG data.

because the RNG data is bogus because either
1). The GC interfered with the calibration, due to lack of shielding, or
2) The data is meaningless due to random changes in the RNG
3) all of the above.
The trivial pursuit of the RNG output and whether it meets some particular standard is grasping at a straw because the entire protocol was flawed, and you don't want to give up.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Transcript of PC Helpdesk Conversation. A caller calls into a PC help desk manned by jzs:

Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss? If so, let me know.

 

[Pragmatist]

Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss? If so, let me know. [/B]

Do you have evidence to support that claim?

 

[T'ai Chi]

1). The GC interfered with the calibration, due to lack of shielding, or

With 1), like Zep and Claus, your debunking has blinded you. You assume the GC exists, which is silly; we don't know that such a thing does or not.

2) The data is meaningless due to random changes in the RNG

You must believe any all RNG data meaningless, rwguinn?

 

[Donks]

I'm curious about one thing. If you grab a 10MB string of RNG data from one of the periods that supposedly show GC, would that pass the DIEHARD tests?

 

[rwguinn]

With 1), like Zep and Claus, your debunking has blinded you. You assume the GC exists, which is silly; we don't know that such a thing does or not [/B]

.

That is a really stupid statement.
nope- Don't believe it exists, but if it did, it would be affecting the RNG's, which makes any calibration meaningless, since you cannot shield from the effect you are attempting to measure.

You must believe any all RNG data meaningless, rwguinn? [/B]

Random Number generators may or may not generate truly random numbers, depending on whether GC exists or not. I truly doubt that there is such a thing as a true RNG

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm curious about one thing. If you grab a 10MB string of RNG data from one of the periods that supposedly show GC, would that pass the DIEHARD tests?

Try it and see Donks. The DIEHARD test is freely available, and so is the GCP data.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Do you have evidence to support that claim?

What claim?

Are you considering

"Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss? If so, let me know."

a claim, Pragmatist?

 

[Donks]

Try it and see Donks. The DIEHARD test is freely available, and so is the GCP data.

I'll try later. I really don't feel like booting into linux right now, and even less like installing a compiler on windows.

Edit: I'm looking at the data. What exactly is it that an egg outputs? A number between 70 and 120?

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
Did you have a point other than to poke fun and dismiss?

I think the following bit makes an important point.

Originally posted by Pragmatist
caller: Sigh...O.K. Why do you think it is working?
jzs: Because it's calibrated.
caller: How does that prove it's working?
jzs: That is the definition of working, "calibrated" means it's working.
caller: You told me before that "calibrated" meant it passed the power on self-test.

If a computer fails the power-on self-test, we can conclude it's not working right. But if it passes the power-on self-test, it may still fail in ways that the power-on self-test wasn't designed to detect. More to the point, if it passes the power-on self-test today, it may still fail that test tomorrow. Such a failure is not evidence of anomalous effects of consciousness on computers; it's evidence of an intermittent computer problem.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Donks
What exactly is it that an egg outputs? A number between 70 and 120?

From http://noosphere.princeton.edu/story.html:

The trial consists of 200 bits and its value is recorded by counting the 1's. We expect that this count will be about 100 because there is a 50/50 chance for a bit to be 1 or 0. [ ... ] The result for each trial at each egg is, in fact, a varying quantity which depends on chance fluctuations, but over a large number of such trials we see a close approximation to the normal distribution, or bell curve. Most of the values are near 100, tapering off to rare scores as far from the mean as 70 or 130.