Global Consciousness Project

[athon]

But I'm not claiming that 'global conscious' exists. Just look at the data for anomalies. [/B]

Just what in the name of Ed are you suggesting?

I still can't figure it out. So far I feel that you are suggesting that in a trial using a RNG a result is produced that is not random. 'X' force is influencing these results.

So, in all of Claus' questions, substitute Global Consciousness with 'X'. It's not different.

Athon

 

[T'ai Chi]

I still can't figure it out. So far I feel that you are suggesting that in a trial using a RNG a result is produced that is not random. 'X' force is influencing these results.

Claus-minded generally attempts to try and make it look like I am saying a paranormal something exists.. but I'm not. I'm saying we should expect these RNGs to operate according to statistical 'laws'. We expect them to not go beyond a certain value, and we can calculate the probability of that happening. When it does happen, and when that probabiltiy is very very very very very very very very (get it?) tiny, we know that something, an anomoly, has occured.

Note, it could be an electrical shock, someone bumped the RNG, spilled soda on it, and so on. It could also be other explanations that we can't even imagine. But we should investigate those cases.

 

[Taion]

We expect them to not go beyond a certain value, and we can calculate the probability of that happening. When it does happen, and when that probabiltiy is very very very very very very very very (get it?) tiny, we know that something, an anomoly, has occured.

How do we determine the likelyhood of this 'thing' happening? How do we know that the RNG is truely random normally?

If you say DIEHARD, I will cry. If it passes DIEHARD, it is random, but after it passes we analyze the data to see if its non-random, but if it's non-random it could not have passed DIEHARD. . .

 

[T'ai Chi]

How do we determine the likelyhood of this 'thing' happening?

Standard probability theory.

How do we know that the RNG is truely random normally?

It passes the DIEHARD tests.

If it passes DIEHARD, it is random, but after it passes we analyze the data to see if its non-random, but if it's non-random it could not have passed DIEHARD. . .

It is always a RNG, that doesn't change. One looks at the RNG output on days specified in the formal hypothesis registry to see if the RNG output is odd on those days thought to be global events.

 

[pmurray]

Re: Re: Global Consciousness Project

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.

Ha! Nonsense! The NVG is simply television news. The PMG will never be big enough to counterct it. Watching TV is anti-meditation.

 

[CFLarsen]

It passes the DIEHARD tests.

But the Orion RNGs do not pass the DIEHARD test. This is a fact, jzs.

And since you can't isolate the data from the Orion RNGs from the rest of the RNGs, you have to discard the whole dataset.

 

[athon]

It is always a RNG, that doesn't change. One looks at the RNG output on days specified in the formal hypothesis registry to see if the RNG output is odd on those days thought to be global events. [/B]

Ok, I think I understand.

Let's assume that the results are significantly different on some days than others.

You are therefore suggesting that on the days a difference occurs, 'X' factor is at work, which is an undefined property. However, as it has been pointed out to you all along, without a second set of results on those same days which are not subect to 'X' factor, the results are meaningless. They could indeed belong to anything from a knocked machine to an electrical short. Every high school student knows you need a negative control for ANY experiment!

That's not even going into the whole 'randomness' issue.

We both agree on one thing; without a subsequent experiment with changes, this GC trial has offered us nothing.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Every high school student knows you need a negative control for ANY experiment!

Indeed.

Jzs, do you acknowledge that the GCP does not have a negative control for their experiments?

If you don't, what is this negative control?

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by jzs
I'm saying we should expect these RNGs to operate according to statistical 'laws'.

According to what statistical laws do you expect them to operate?

But before you answer too quickly, consider these questions: Why is the RNG output XORed with a mask containing equal numbers of 0s as 1s---shouldn't the output already contain an equal number of 0s and 1s? Why is there a need for the variance of the data subsequently to be normalized---shouldn't the variance already have the theoretically predicted value?

The reason is that the RNGs do not operate according to the statistical laws that one might naively expect them to.

We expect them to not go beyond a certain value, and we can calculate the probability of that happening.

If the calculation assumes that the RNGs follow statistical laws which, in reality, they do not follow, the calculated probability will be wrong.

When it does happen, and when that probabiltiy is very very very very very very very very (get it?) tiny, we know that something, an anomoly, has occured.

Note, it could be an electrical shock, someone bumped the RNG, spilled soda on it, and so on. It could also be other explanations that we can't even imagine. But we should investigate those cases.

One explanation that I can imagine is that the RNGs don't follow the statistical laws you expect them to, to begin with. Even in the absence of shocks, bumps, or soda.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But the Orion RNGs do not pass the DIEHARD test. This is a fact, jzs.

No, your "fact" is not a fact. It is a lie.

From the Orion site

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

"The Random Number Generator parallel port dongle(Mac/DOS/Win) is the first true RNG to pass Marsaglia's famous DIEHARD randomness test. "

As you well know, I emailed the contact email on that webpage to ask them about your 'critique' about the amount of bits, etc. As you well know, again, they responded back, and I posted their response, with permission, that the numbers in your 'critique' refer to an additional test they do on the RNGs prior to shipping to make sure they are functional prior to shipping.

Please, you have no excuse to be typing your lies.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Indeed.

Jzs, do you acknowledge that the GCP does not have a negative control for their experiments?

If you don't, what is this negative control?

Since athon mentioned "negative control", you should ask him. I've personally never heard those words used together like that.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You are therefore suggesting that on the days a difference occurs, 'X' factor is at work, which is an undefined property.

Well, I'm not suggesting it. That may be what the project creators are doing. Although, they seem to be exploring a correlation, not a causation.

However, as it has been pointed out to you all along, without a second set of results on those same days which are not subect to 'X' factor, the results are meaningless.

How do you know in advance what days will be "subject to X factor" or even if "X factor" exists.

 

[T'ai Chi]

According to what statistical laws do you expect them to operate?

Approximately binomial, mean 100 and standard deviation ~ 7.07.

Why is the RNG output XORed

Because we are dealing with a real-life, complex electronic machine that is generating the data, that we know has a small amount of bias that can be measured and subtracted out.

---shouldn't the output already contain an equal number of 0s and 1s?

The output is ongoing.

But take a fair coin, flip it 10 times. You seem to saying if any number of heads is obtained that is not equal to 5, it is not random.

If the calculation assumes that the RNGs follow statistical laws which, in reality, they do not follow, the calculated probability will be wrong.

The probability is dependant on the bias. If the bias is large, yes, that is a real problem. Since they know the bias, can estimate it, they subtract it out for that very reason.

One explanation that I can imagine is that the RNGs don't follow the statistical laws you expect them to, to begin with.

Like Stimpy, you can imagine all the scenarios you'd like.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Why is the RNG output XORed

Because we are dealing with a real-life, complex electronic machine that is generating the data, that we know has a small amount of bias that can be measured and subtracted out.

You do realize that they justify the XOR mathmatically, as stimpy does?

If you don't think math applies to stochastic processes, remember that what the RNGs put out is a string of bits. Stimpy's math applies to any set of bits. Math is all that is required to justify it.

Walt

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you don't think math applies to stochastic processes,

Where did I say that??? Just show me. Please, please, PLEASE don't lie and say that I implied that. I've had just about enough of that for one day.

I am saying that if Stimpy has no measure of the bias, I could care less about his theoretical 'critique', whose conclusion of 'the analysis is meaningless' hinges on there being large bias.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Where did I say that??? Just show me. Please, please, PLEASE don't lie and say that I implied that. I've had just about enough of that for one day.

I am saying that if Stimpy has no measure of the bias, I could care less about his theoretical 'critique', whose conclusion of 'the analysis is meaningless' hinges on there being large bias. [/B]

Stimpy doesn't need a measure of the bias, he has shown that their corrective methodology isn't corrective.

 

[CFLarsen]

Please, you have no excuse to be typing your lies.

Please, have the Orion RNGs used in the PEAR experiments all been tested, or is it one example, at Orion, that was tested?

I'll answer for you: The latter.

You do understand the problem, don't you? It's like testing a prototype of a thermometer, and then producing a number of thermometers, without ever testing if just one of those thermometers are measuring temperature correctly.

You can't trust the data at GCP, jzs. It's that simple.

 

[CFLarsen]

Since athon mentioned "negative control", you should ask him. I've personally never heard those words used together like that.

But you understand perfectly what they mean. What does GCP do to prevent electrical shocks, someone bumping the RNG, spilling soda on it, and so on?

 

[DionysianSmile]

Claus-minded generally attempts to try and make it look like I am saying a paranormal something exists.. but I'm not. I'm saying we should expect these RNGs to operate according to statistical 'laws'. We expect them to not go beyond a certain value, and we can calculate the probability of that happening. When it does happen, and when that probabiltiy is very very very very very very very very (get it?) tiny, we know that something, an anomoly, has occured.

I'm not sure I know what is meant by "expect these RNGs to operate according to statistical laws". I thought a random number generator was an algorthim that's randomly seeded to produce a value. When a computer clock is used then if you can figure it's synced to the clock, it would not be hard to break down the algorithm. This device uses the parallel port so it's hardware removed from the clock and can use anything it pleases to seed? Am I read this stuff improperly? Isn't that why you'd want to use a rng say in casino so no one could use a computer to break down the algorithm. Is GCP normalize or make the RNG predictable? Like is it running the DIEBOLD (like the company?) test, passing nicely, and then suddenly starts to fail to generate random numbers? Or you are able to predict numbers numbers for a bit?
If the company has something used in gaming machines you would think they would not want to sell to psi researchers for fear of casinos getting smart assed GCPers in the casino making the slot machines bring 3 cherries just because they chinced out on ORION RNGs. I guess it's like an arms dealer selling to both sides.

 

[athon]

Well, I'm not suggesting it. That may be what the project creators are doing. Although, they seem to be exploring a correlation, not a causation.

Huh? It's statements like these that just demonstrate how little of the scientific process you understand. I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you were arguing something that had substance...now I see you don't.

They might not be testing the nature of the causation, but even a correlation assumes that a phenomena will have some sort of cause, obviously. That's the whole point of doing a correlation - to explore a direction in which a cause may lie.

They are looking at a correlation between 'non randomness' and 'select days of the year'. This is not causation, because a day of the year is not a phenomena, therefore cannot 'cause' non-randomness. However, the assumption therefore must be made that if the observation is real, a phenomena must be causing the non-randomness on these days.

By supporting the validity of the data, you are supporting the fact it has a real cause, even though that cause has not been speculated on (according to you).

How do you know in advance what days will be "subject to X factor" or even if "X factor" exists.

Until you've achieved a theory on this, you cannot hope to make valid predictions. But an 'x factor' must exist for the non-randomness to occur. That's the entire point! Maybe it is just random bat-farts in the ether, or bumped equipment, or God having a cosmic joke...if it is truly non-random, something is causing it.

Again, that's not even going into whether it really is non-random or not.

As for not knowing what a negative control is...I really do have to ask if you are serious. If you are, I'll happily explain it to you.

Athon