Global Consciousness Project

[T'ai Chi]

The picture comes to mind..

Have you ever had a thread about something paranormal, etc., where you didn't resort to personal attacks?

That would be a paranormal event I'm thinking.

Scoff away.

 

[jj]

The picture comes to mind..

Have you ever had a thread about something paranormal, etc., where you didn't resort to personal attacks?

That would be a paranormal event I'm thinking.

Scoff away.

When will you reply substantively to Stimpy's completely telling, absolute destruction of the PEAR methodology?

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
They don't store the RNG ID with the data

They do.

 

[CFLarsen]

They do.

Correct. However, they don't isolate the data from a faulty EGG. If one EGG flunks during a day, the data is not included that day, but if it doesn't the next day, they simply include it again, without ever finding out why it malfunctioned.

Would you trust an RNG to provide real random numbers, if it had malfunctioned the previous day?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Correct.

However before you said

"They don't store the RNG ID with the data"

R E A D T H E I R S I T E P L E A S E.
(before criticizing their site)

 

[Robin]

However before you said

"They don't store the RNG ID with the data"

R E A D T H E I R S I T E P L E A S E.
(before criticizing their site) [/B]

An interesting page to read on their site is:

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

Where they list 199 events and z scores for each. 19 out of 199 are identified as statistically significant and these have a z score of greater than 1.64 or less than -1.64.

If the data was purely random the proportion you would expect to have these scores is 10%. The proportion of events that have these score is 10%.

So this system does not detect global events, much less predict them - I am not sure why they are still persisting with this.

I wonder if the rest of Princeton are happy at having this site linked to their name.

 

[Zep]

So this system does not detect global events, much less predict them - I am not sure why they are still persisting with this.

I wonder if the rest of Princeton are happy at having this site linked to their name.

[my_opinion]

PEAR research appears to have nothing much to do with anything - the whole setup appears to be simply a sinicure for the participants. Exceedingly wealthy but silent donors with rather odd views on the paranormal contribute greatly to its upkeep (or perhaps it's a massive tax-dodge, I don't know). So should the PEAR team ever actually say they can't find anything then the "game" is finished and the money stops. So, of course, they know which side their bread is buttered on so they never actually say that, do they!

[/my_opinion]

 

[T'ai Chi]

So should the PEAR team ever actually say they can't find anything then the "game" is finished and the money stops. So, of course, they know which side their bread is buttered on so they never actually say that, do they!
[/my_opinion]

Zep, feel free to reveal all of this money that you believe exists. Must be some conspiracy that you have some special knowledge on.

Personally, I see more "$" signs on Skeptic.com when I go to that page than I've ever seen on on any "woo" site.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I wonder if the rest of Princeton are happy at having this site linked to their name.

I have never read anything suggesting they are unhappy. In places of learning, things tend to get investigated, no matter if they are not the current topics of science.

 

[CFLarsen]

The University of Princeton is not associated with the Global Consciousness Project:

All members of the Planning Group participate in the EGG Project as individuals, and not as representatives of their affiliated institutions.
Source

The Planning Group consists of:

• Roger Nelson, Project Director, is Research Coordinator of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) at Princeton University. He serves as producer, art director, and science manager for the GCP.
• Dick Bierman, Professor of Psychology (albeit a physicist), University of Amsterdam, is a pioneer of World Wide Web experiments in anomalies. He is the editor of eJAP, the electronic Journal of Anomalous Phenomena.
• Greg Nelson, American Nuclear Systems, Knoxville, TN, is a computer scientist (Artificial Intelligence) with major interest in systems integration. He is chief architect for the EGG network backbone.
• John Walker, near Neuchatel, Switzerland, is founder and former CEO of Autodesk, Inc., developer of the AutoCAD computer aided design software. His current focus is a Web site (http://www.fourmilab.ch/) which hosts, among other resources, The RetroPsychoKinesis Project.
• Rick Berger, Innovative Software Design/Innovative Product Marketing, San Antonio, Texas, has a long history and deep interest in anomalies research. He is chiefly responsible for the logic and aesthetics of GCP's website.
• George deBeaumont, is a data analyst with a major utilities firm, and has a deep interest in consciousness and its possible effects in the world. He is the creator of most of the detailed graphical displays exploring the current results.
• Charles Overby, Lifebridge Foundation, New York, is a computer engineer with experience in secure network communications. He is a shaman and scholar, investigating subtle energies that may emanate from humans.
• Dean Radin, Interval Research, Palo Alto, CA, author of "The Conscious Universe", is an early explorer of effects of group consciousness. He has long-standing interest in integrating multivariate data complexes.
• Marilyn Schlitz is Director of Research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. She is a medical anthropologist, with major interests in research on consciousness and the interactions of intentionality and living systems.
• Stephan Schwartz, various US locations, formerly Research Director of the Mobius Society, is an entrepreneurial pioneer in applications of psi to problem solving and discovery in archaeological, medical, and other fields.
• Jiri Wackermann, has three hats: Neuroscience Technology Research, Prague; KEY Institute for Brain/Mind Research, Zurich; and Psychophysiology of Consciousness Laboratory, IGPP, Freiburg, Germany. He explores complex, hyperdimensional representations of states of mind.
  Source

Only one could be said to have been on the payroll of Princeton, Roger Nelson, and he retired in 2002.

The GCP does not operate under the aegis of the University of Princeton:

It operates under the aegis of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, a 501(c)(3) research entity, which will manage the funding for the project.
Source

 

[Zep]

Zep, feel free to reveal all of this money that you believe exists. Must be some conspiracy that you have some special knowledge on.

Personally, I see more "$" signs on Skeptic.com when I go to that page than I've ever seen on on any "woo" site.

Oopsie.

So let us look finally at PEAR again, and perhaps more specifically at their listed supporters: "Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene, Lifebridge Foundation, Richard Adams, George Ohrstrom, Laurance S. Rockefeller, and other private donors."

1. The Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene (IGPP) is based in Freiburg German, and states that it was founded in order to "achieve an improved understanding of mind-matter relationships from the perspectives of the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences". It also "offers information and counseling services for people with extraordinary experiences and entertains a special library and a research archive for parapsychology and border areas of psychology."
2. The Lifebridge Foundation "was established in 1992 for the purpose of supporting organizations and individuals who, through cultural, education, and/or scientific means, are dedicated to creating bridges of understanding among all people by bringing to realization the concepts of one humanity and the interconnectedness of all life."
3. Richard Adams I have not been able to accurately identify, although a particular candidate appears likely – not the author of Watership Down, either.
4. George Ohrstrom is a highly reclusive person whose father was one of the darlings of Wall Street in the 1920’s. He is the chairman of G.L. Ohrstrom & Co., is on the boards of various large industrial corporations, is reputedly worth US$140 million per annum, and apparently contributes to a variety of charitable causes. His sister, Magalen Ohrstrom Bryant, seems to be an "eccentric millionairess" who is worth even more than George.
5. Laurance S. Rockefeller is a contributor to the Human Potential Foundation Inc., whose goals are "Exciting research was occurring in areas of inter-species communication, consciousness, life-after-death, non-human intelligence and alternative energy sources, all of which the Foundation wanted to examine and to then aid via scientific research in whatever ways seemed possible". Laurance appears to be the driving force behind HPF’s UFO Matrix of "Belief". In this document, the HPF has encouraged the United States government to reveal all that it may know about, and technology supplied by, visiting UFOs.

In summary, it is probably fair to say that the supporters of PEAR are certainly wealthy, and not only sympathetic towards PEAR’s aims, but they also would likely be impressed by the "scientific" nature of PEAR’s published output. And they would certainly seem to be ideal "targets" for a summary of analyses of 25 years worth of remote-viewing work, with a metaphysical apologia of paranormal and pseudo-scientific buzzwords on the end.

Why try to impress them in this way? Let me posit a simple answer: the money. Consider the alternative. If PEAR had indeed published a summary of 25 years of remote viewing data and allowed the null conclusion to be clearly visible then their stream of support funding from their supporters becomes in jeopardy. However if this result could be buried in gobbledegook and made up to look like research was ongoing and yielding results then the income stream is protected. The impression on the rest of the scientific world is really secondary – the Hansen Utts Markwick paper is not really a major issue. The sinecure of retaining PEAR’s continued existence and funding, not to mention prestige, would probably count more highly.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

Zep, feel free to reveal all of this money that you believe exists. Must be some conspiracy that you have some special knowledge on.

I thought you had read the article that Zep referred to?

Guess not.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The University of Princeton is not associated with the Global Consciousness Project:

Good info, but we are talking about it being linked to their name (ie. the word "Princeton" is in the name), not that they are necessarily on Princeton's payroll.

Were they on Princeton's payroll at one time?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Oopsie.
http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

Zep, if you were paying attention (replying to me, even though in another thread you claim to have me on ignore?, ), I didn't ask you for a list of their supporters. I asked you to reveal all of this money that you believe exists. Like are they getting a lot, or a little, etc.

And like I said... as an exercise for you, go count the $ signs on the front page of Skeptic.com

I'm skeptical you can find any woo page with more. That is why the dollar argument that you are touting is pretty lame.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I thought you had read the article that Zep referred to?

Guess not.

I don't have much confidence anymore in non-peer-reviewed non-journal articles, many of which aren't even spell checked, hosted on a site beloning to a person known to be hostile to the subjects being written about, written mainly by anonymous people with no credentials in the fields they are writing about, and some deliberately poking fun at their subjects.

Guess you do.

 

[T'ai Chi]

An interesting page to read on their site is:

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

Where they list 199 events and z scores for each. 19 out of 199 are identified as statistically significant and these have a z score of greater than 1.64 or less than -1.64.

If the data was purely random the proportion you would expect to have these scores is 10%. The proportion of events that have these score is 10%.

So this system does not detect global events, much less predict them - I am not sure why they are still persisting with this.

That's interesting. It seems we have somewhat of a paradox then, because the combined Z score is highly significant, but we'd expect it to not be.

In fact, about 60% of the z-scores are positive.

 

[jj]

I don't have much confidence anymore in non-peer-reviewed non-journal articles, many of which aren't even spell checked, hosted on a site beloning to a person known to be hostile to the subjects being written about, written mainly by anonymous people with no credentials in the fields they are writing about, and some deliberately poking fun at their subjects.

Guess you do.

.

Have you, yet, any rebuttal to the total dismissal of the PEAR work offered by Stimpy? I have seen evasions and such, but no direct evidence that Stimpy is not right. Stimpy does not owe you proof, you owe him proof that he is wrong, since you are the one at least suggesting that the PEAR work is valid, which represents an extraordinary claim.

 

[T'ai Chi]

.
Have you, yet, any rebuttal to the total dismissal of the PEAR work offered by Stimpy? I have seen evasions and such, but no direct evidence that Stimpy is not right. Stimpy does not owe you proof, you owe him proof that he is wrong, since you are the one at least suggesting that the PEAR work is valid, which represents an extraordinary claim.

He couldn't calculate the variance of 10 whole numbers correctly, yet went out of his way to insult me for even suggesting that his expertise goofed. If he didn't even listen or understand in regards to a critique about somethig so simple, to talk about the much more complex would be an exercise in futility. Previously he made a comment that the GCP didn't even list the non-significant p-values, when a quick glance at their results page shows otherwise. Debating with someone like this is a waste of my time, and that is being said based on the evidence.

It is not up to me to show proof (and you mean "evidence", not "proof"; *sigh*, will you ever understand the difference?) that Stimpy is not right, as you stupidly believe. He has showed nothing convincing, except mistakes that convince me he doesn't know what he is talking about, and none of your bluster, or his repeated misunderstandings, will change that.

 

[Robin]

That's interesting. It seems we have somewhat of a paradox then, because the combined Z score is highly significant, but we'd expect it to not be.

In fact, about 60% of the z-scores are positive.

And you would expect it to be 50%, but try this - generate 200 pseudo-random numbers in a spreadsheet and then calculate the z scores using the assumed mean and standard deviation (as GCP does). Then calculate the percentage of positive z scores and try hitting the recalculate key a few times. This will vary from about 45% to 60% so the results are not unusual for purely random data.

Additionally the analysis of the events is not consistent, there are 7 distinct resolutions, presumably the analyst has chosen the resolution that gives the most significant result.

Incidentally I made a mistake in my previous post - there are about 13% of events with an absolute z score of over 1.64. However a similar test of 200 z scores on assumed mean and variance shows that this is not unusual for random data, especially given the selection bias referred to earlier.

 

[Robin]

The University of Princeton is not associated with the Global Consciousness Project

It is hosted on the Princeton domain (and thus gains credibility). It is headed by Roger Nelson who your link says is still connected with PEAR, the project grew out of PEAR and the PEAR main page proudly displays cumulative deviation traces from random event generators. Certainly the article in the OP hammers the Princeton link for all it is worth. So it is certainly associated with Princeton, even if it is not actually run by Princeton.

I was just wondering if this is a sore point with Princeton faculty the way the ID link is a sore point with Baylor.

I have never read anything suggesting they are unhappy. In places of learning, things tend to get investigated, no matter if they are not the current topics of science.

Presumably they have some sort of maths department at Princeton, I wonder how happy they are at the statistical analysis of this and other PEAR projects. If I have time I may write to them and get their opinion of the 'cumulative deviation' methods used.

One of they key claims of the project is that cumulative z^2-1 from normally distributed random data will always do a random walk around zero. Well maybe, but how close to zero? In fact if you try this just on a spreadsheet you will find that cumulative z^2-1 from random data displays just the deviations that Nelson claims are evidence of a link with global consciousness.