• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Consciousness Project

Is jzs still flailing about in an empty room, pretending he has convinced everyone there he is right?

More to the point, why should I care?
 
Oh, there might be the odd chance that Justin will actually answer some questions (not one of them mine!):

  • Different from what one would expect by chance, assuming what null hypothesis?
  • How do we distinguish out-of-whackness that is due to global consciousness from out-of-whackness that is due to more mundane causes?
  • Where do they say that "What the GCP people do for a 'control' is compare the data on a day that is in the formal hypothesis registry to a neighboring day that is not in the formal hypothesis registry"?
  • How do they get a specific p-value from such a comparison?
  • What should we look for in the data?
  • What are we justified in concluding, if we find it?
  • How do we tell the difference between the two situations that Taion described?
 
More to the point, how about some honest-to-goodness reason why anyone would think that "global conciousness" would happen to manifest itself by flipping bits in a random number generator based on fairly grossly sized electrical sputtering. Because if it did, all the computers in the world, which depend on much smaller and way more sensitive components doing bit-flips to work properly, should be going completely haywire any time something "affects GC". Which is...all the time, isn't it! ;) ;)
 
Zep said:
More to the point, how about some honest-to-goodness reason why anyone would think that "global conciousness" would happen to manifest itself by flipping bits in a random number generator
Click to expand...


From what I've read, RNG experiments are natural extensions of coinflip and card experiments.


Because if it did, all the computers in the world, which depend on much smaller and way more sensitive components doing bit-flips to work properly, should be going completely haywire any time something "affects GC".
Click to expand...

More "if it existed, then..." approach, speculating on what hypothetical things hypothetically do, instead of looking at the actual data.
 
CFLarsen said:
Oh, there might be the odd chance that Justin will actually answer some questions (not one of them mine!):
Click to expand...


But there's still no chance that you'd directly answer my question to you about the statistics involved with the RNG output, is there?


How do we distinguish out-of-whackness that is due to global consciousness from out-of-whackness that is due to more mundane causes?
Click to expand...


But I'm not claiming that 'global conscious' exists. Just look at the data for anomalies.
 
jzs said:
But I'm not claiming that 'global conscious' exists. Just look at the data for anomalies.
Click to expand...

Ah. But you claim that there are anomalies in the GCP data?
 
Will you directly answer the question I put towards you, like with numbers and stuff?

No?
 
Will you directly answer the question I put towards you, like with numbers and stuff?

No?
 
jzs,

Any chance of you responding to the derivation of my criticisms of the PEAR statistics which you demanded? I posted my response on the Sceptics Society forum two days ago, but you have not responded.


Dr. Stupid
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
jzs,

Any chance of you responding to the derivation of my criticisms of the PEAR statistics which you demanded? I posted my response on the Sceptics Society forum two days ago, but you have not responded.


Dr. Stupid
Click to expand...

Bump.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
jzs,

Any chance of you responding to the derivation of my criticisms of the PEAR statistics which you demanded? I posted my response on the Sceptics Society forum two days ago, but you have not responded.


Dr. Stupid
Click to expand...

Bump.
 
Claus, Will you directly answer the question I put towards you, like with numbers and stuff?

No?

Bump.
 
jzs said:
Claus, Will you directly answer the question I put towards you, like with numbers and stuff?

No?

Bump.
Click to expand...
Nock it off. The question is totally irelevent, anyway. It is your attempt at a diversion from the real question, which you have failed to address
 
rwguinn said:
Nock it off. The question is totally irelevent, anyway. It is your attempt at a diversion from the real question, which you have failed to address
Click to expand...

It is entirely relevant, as it involves RNG's, specifically the calibration issue we are discussing ad nausuem here, as well as it was a question I asked him WAY before he asked me his.

So again,

Claus, Will you directly answer the question I put towards you, like with numbers and stuff?

Bump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom