Global Consciousness Project

[jacob]

Hi, everyone.


I would like to discuss the idea of the Global Consciousness Project, which uses true Random Number Generator "Eggs" in various places of the world to check the correlation between possibly significant events in the world and the variance from predicted statistical result of the RNGs.

Official site:
Global Consciousness Project -- consciousness, group consciousness, mind

The results from Aug 98 to Nov 2007 they present:


Category Hypothesis Number of Events Stouffer Z Probability
Rigorously Defined Events Positive Trend 244 5.014 2.666x10-7


Isn't this a good example of possible psi effect?

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by jacob

Isn't this a good example of possible psi effect?

It's an interesting effect that, to me, practically screams out for an explanation.

However, I think it's premature to label the explanation as psi.

Critics will point out the possibility of data mining (i.e., you can find a pattern in any set of random data if you look hard enough), or other influences on the RNGs that correspond with human events (e.g., increased use of the power grid or cell phones could affect the RNGs).

I know Dean Radin had dealt with both of these criticisms. Whether he dealt with them completely is up for debate.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wake me up when they make a prediction.

Although that's unlikely now that PEAR is closed. I don't know what their finals comments on the REG experiments were, but they didn't end up with much on the remote viewing experiments:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/IU.pdf

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Wake me up when they make a prediction.

Although that's unlikely now that PEAR is closed. I don't know what their finals comments on the REG experiments were, but they didn't end up with much on the remote viewing experiments:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/IU.pdf

~~ Paul

On the contrary, I think the results of their remote viewing research is very interesting. I think you may have been reading too much bad critcism from the JREF board.

This is what happened: When they increased the number of descriptors for collecting the data, the effect faded away. For example, when they collected the results in a binary yes/no fashion they got very significant results but when they asked questions with three responses, the data became less significant and when they asked questions with even more response options the data became insignificant. The sceptic might quite rightly suggest that the results could therefore be simply due to an artefact of the data collection and analsis. But what PEAR did was to take data from multiple response questions and collape the data into a binary yes/no data set and then analyse it. If the results are due to analysis artefact then the newly collapsed data from the original nonsignificant multiple response data set should become significant. This did not happen. Therefore there are no grounds for asserting that the PEAR results are due to analysis artefact, contrary to what people over at the JREF board used to (and probably still do) say.

What we are left with is the interesting possibility that the nature of how many responses are allowed for each question affect how psi information is extracted from the participants.

It's just a shame that they didn't use adequate controls though.

[Ersby]

We should be careful not to confuse PEAR's remote viewing program with the GCP. This happens a lot on JREF, and usually ends up with people talking at cross-purposes.

The issue I have with GCP is that it doesn't mean anything. A world day of meditation seems to have the same effect as the assasination of a Middle Eastern politician. If a score of a particular event is positive, does that mean something as opposed to if it were negative or if it scored zero? Why do some of the data start with the event occuring in the first hour, and some in the second? If this is proof of psi, can we look at the data and then draw conclusions as to how much global consciousness cares about a particular event?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by davidsmith

What we are left with is the interesting possibility that the nature of how many responses are allowed for each question affect how psi information is extracted from the participants.

Then let's run a series where some subjects give yes/no responses and others give multiple-choice responses.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Why do some of the data start with the event occuring in the first hour, and some in the second?

Either way, we ought to be able to make predictions. Let's make predictions.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I do have to ask: What in the name of mathematical hell is going on in PEAR papers such as this one:

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/portals..._16%283%29.pdf

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Then let's run a series where some subjects give yes/no responses and others give multiple-choice responses.

~~ Paul

I thought that's what PEAR did?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by davidsmith

thought that's what PEAR did?

Perhaps, I can't remember. I mean that they should do both things in the same study.

Part of the reason I have trouble taking this seriously is that the math papers they wrote are so ludicrous.

~~ Paul