Can Consciousness Effect Random Number Generators?

[Don Blazys]

Here's a really fascinating and unusual area of study with enormous consequences.

 

Global Consciousness Project -- consciousness, group consciousness, mind

 

Check out the "Bottom Line", where "global consciousness" seems to effect

the random number generators (so that their output is measurably less random)

in almost every instance where a "sufficiently significant" event (such as 911) occurs.

 

If this is "for real", then the implications are simply astonishing.

 

This thread is for the purpose of discussing those possible implications.

 

Don.

[Boerseun]

Well, no.

 

The Global Consciousness Project collects random numbers from around the world. These numbers are available on the GCP website. This website downloads those numbers once a minute and performs sophisticated analysis on these random numbers to see how coherent they are. That is, how probable it is that the numbers are generated as they are. The theory is that the Global Consciousness of all the people of the world affect these random numbers... Maybe they aren't quite as random as we thought.

 

When randomly generated numbers from around the world overlap, it can be indicative of lots of things that those machines are exposed to, like solar activity, earth magnetic flux, etc. There is nothing to suggest that the combined "consciousness" of all the people on Earth will have any influence whatsoever that will be greater than that of the magnetic influence of the sun and the earth, both which have a global electrical influence.

 

The people on this website have already concluded what they want the result to be, and are now chasing data to support it.

 

Not scientific at all.

[UncleAl]

If prayer, telepathy, telekinesis... any brain modality individual or summed made any difference at all, Bill Gates would be a smoking crater so many times/day. Nobody cleans out Las Vegas slots by thinking at their chips. Global financial transactions are not compromised by thinking at their encryption.

 

Any ship can be a mine detector... once.

[Don Blazys]

To: Boerseun,

 

Quoting Boerseun:

There is nothing to suggest that the combined "consciousness" of all the people on Earth will have any influence whatsoever that will be greater than that of the magnetic influence of the sun and the earth, both which have a global electrical influence

 

The people on this website have already concluded what they want the result to be, and are now chasing data to support it.

 

Not scientific at all.

 

Supposedly, the "Global Consciousness Project" is a worldwide network of esteemed

scientists, mathematicians and engineers, based and headquartered at Princeton.

(You know, the university whose hallways were traversed

by the likes of Albert Einstein and Kurt Godel.)

 

Perhaps we should inform them that they are all a bunch of kooks, cranks, crackpots,

loonies and crazies for spending millions of dollars and countless hours

on this "wild goose chase" !

 

Don.

[freeztar]

I'm always wary of such statistics. Is the cat alive or dead?

[Boerseun]

Perhaps we should inform them that they are all a bunch of kooks, cranks, crackpots, loonies and crazies for spending millions of dollars and countless hours on this "wild goose chase" !

 

Don.

Maybe we should! :(

[Don Blazys]

To: uncle Al,

 

Quoting Uncle Al:

If prayer, telepathy, telekinesis... any brain modality individual or summed made any difference at all, Bill Gates would be a smoking crater so many times/day. Nobody cleans out Las Vegas slots by thinking at their chips. Global financial transactions are not compromised by thinking at their encryption.

 

Any ship can be a mine detector... once.

 

This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with prayer, telepathy,

telekinesis, Bill Gates, thinking at chips or encryption.

 

It's a lot more subtle than that.

 

The effect being studied is clearly quantum mechanical in nature,

and the statistical analysis of that effect over a period of ten years has

demonstrated that the probability of that effect being real is almost

"probability 1" or "certainty".

 

Don.

[Boerseun]

The effect being studied is clearly quantum mechanical in nature,

and the statistical analysis of that effect over a period of ten years has

demonstrated that the probability of that effect being real is almost

"probability 1" or "certainty".

I went to that site, and they present no alternative hypotheses as to what might cause it.

 

They simply assume that it is caused by some sort of "global consciousness" - and now they're enumerating instances in support of their wacky hypothesis which could very well be caused by hosts of other reasons. This is not science.

 

In my first reply to this thread I have presented two alternative hypothesis with a much higher probability for being the cause of their measuring than "global consciousness". If it is indeed "global consciousness", then James Randi is out of a million bucks.

 

Show me the check with Randi's signature on it, and we'll take another look at this.

[Don Blazys]

To: Freezstar,

 

Quoting Freezstar:

I'm always wary of such statistics. Is the cat alive or dead?

 

What cat? All I see is a box with some kind of radiation detector attached to it !

 

Don .

[freeztar]

What box? :(

[Don Blazys]

To: Boerseun:

 

Quoting Boerseun:

They simply assume that it is caused by some sort of "global consciousness" - and now they're enumerating instances in support of their wacky hypothesis which could very well be caused by hosts of other reasons. This is not science.

 

Apparently, those "wacky" rascals at Princeton are completely unaware that their endeavor is "not science".

 

Quoting Boerseun:

In my first reply to this thread I have presented two alternative hypothesis with a much higher probability for being the cause of their measuring than "global consciousness". If it is indeed "global consciousness", then James Randi is out of a million bucks.

 

Show me the check with Randi's signature on it, and we'll take another look at this.

James Randi demands "proof" of a "paranormal phenomenon" before he "pays up".

However, "consciousness" is not a "paranormal phenomenon" but a self evident actuality.

That consciousness "collapses" the "probability function" of a quantum mechanical event

has nothing to do with "paranormal phenomena". It's a well known fact!

So, why should it be so difficult to surmise that

the same principle somehow applies in this instance?

Besides, no ammount of "statistical" evidence will ever constitute "proof",

so Randi's money is safe.

 

Don.

[Qfwfq]

That consciousness "collapses" the "probability function" of a quantum mechanical event

has nothing to do with "paranormal phenomena". It's a well known fact!

This was no more than a conjecture of the Copenhagen School, even before it fell somewhat into discredit. It's a bit on the tall side to call it a well known fact.

[Don Blazys]

To: qfwfq,

 

Quoting qfwfq:

This was no more than a conjecture of the Copenhagen School, even before it fell somewhat into discredit. It's a bit on the tall side to call it a well known fact.

 

To clarify, I meant that the "conjecture" is a "well known fact".

There are indeed many "competing conjectures"

such as the "instrumentalist interpretation", or the "many worlds interpretation",

but the Copenhagen interpretation is still

the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

For me, the "problem" of "interpreting" quantum mechanics can be reduced to this:

 

Any subjective and arbitrary seperation between the "observer" and the "observed" would still require that we somehow define the "observer"

as being "conscious" and the "observed" as being "unconscious".

 

What I find compelling about the "Global Consciousness Project" at Princeton University

is that the data seems to imply that no such seperation between "observer" and "observed" actually exists.

 

In other words, perhaps the distinction between "observer" and "observed" is entirely artificial

and "consciousness" is, in actuality, a non-local phenomenon that is neither dependent on biological function, nor contingent on any prerequisite condition involving matter, energy, time and space.

 

Any "experience" of "unconsciousness" would then be "self contradictory", "logically undefined",

and therefore "impossible", which would leave "consciousness" as the only possibility.

 

Don.

[CraigD]

The Global Consciousness Project is certainly a fascinating subject, regardless of whether one believe its claims that a tiny, but statistically significant higher “correlation” (more on what is meant by the unusual use of this term later) between the random numbers generated by its many hardware random number generators (RNG) occur when emotionally engaging things such as the funeral of Princess Dianna or the Olympic games occur than for other periods, or whether you see the continued efforts of the project’s participants as an example of wishful thinking making one believe in an effect that isn’t present, or even consciously or unconsciously distort, omit, or fake data.

 

I think it’s useful to be aware of the context of the GCP - where and who it comes from - and how it is similar to and different from previous similar projects.

 

GCP’s obvious parent project was the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, a small group (8 staff over its 28 year existence) of people from many academic disciplines (most notedly Engineering and Psychology) that conducted research from 1978 until 2007. Psychologist Roger Nelson of PEAR started GCP in 1997.

 

The major difference between PEAR’s main experiment and GCP’s is that, in PEAR’s, participants are aware of the existence, and/or location, etc. of an RNG, and attempt, without physically touching it, to increase or decrease the values of the random numbers it generates during a specific period. In the simplest, and most widely described, test, the average of the numbers for that period is then calculated, compared to the average for a long period, and the probability that the difference in average is due to chance (its z-score) calculated. If the difference in means is larger than expected due to chance, the test is considered a “hit” – that is, it’s assumed the subject caused the difference through their mental focus, or “intentions”. Controversially, PEAR usually considered a significant decrease in the average when the subject intended to produce an increase, and vice versa, to be a hit.

 

In the GCP, averages of random numbers are compared in a similar manner, but most of the people assumed to be affecting the RNGs are not aware of their existence. Instead, it’s assumed that the emotional state of large groups of people affect them. Although I’ve read superficially, I gather that GCP considers periods where many RNGs for the same period generate numbers with averages significantly greater or less than usual to be a hit.

 

PEAR suggested that the effects it claimed to show were due either to subjects minds exerting unexplained physical force – that is, psychokinesis – or to the subject exerting some sort of control over many effects of the very tiny level dominated by quantum mechanical effects – “choosing ones world-line” to borrow a concept from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. From this page of the GCP’s website, I get the impression that their explanations tend to more resemble Jung’s collective unconscious or Sheldrake’s morphic fields (both of which, like psychokinesis, are considered pseudoscientific).

 

A major difference between projects like PEAR and GCP and conventional scientific ones (for example, CERN’s ATHENA project), is that while the latter starts with a theoretical explanation of some effects, make precises predictions using that theory, and compare (very successfully, in ATHENA’s case) those predictions to experimental results, PEAR and GCP attempt more to show that an effect exists at all. Presumably, if an effect such as intention affecting RNGs could be clearly demonstrated, many people would be interested in developing theoretical explanation of it. Unfortunately for proponents of GCP, the effects it claims to demonstrate are not clearly demonstrated, leading most serious scientists and enthusiasts to doubt they exists at all.

 

If I may draw an imaginative analogy:

Imagine that you are an intelligent being living in a nearly zero-gravity opaque gas cloud in orbit around a brown dwarf. Through precise experiments, you show a miniscule attraction between small masses, but in an environment dominated by chemical and electrostatic forces, the effect is so small that few or you fellows are convinced your experiment shows any unexplained effect at all, and nobody is interested in developing a theory of gravity.

 

Eventually, however, you build a sufficiently large device – say an enclosed, zero-gravity

Cavendish balance

- well isolated from other known effects, and show unambiguously that gravity exists. Everybody acknowledges it, and a theories of gravity quickly emerge, expanding everyone’s understanding of the universe.

On Earth, the effect of gravity is strong compared to other effects, so its existence was never doubted, and theories about it emerged easily. For the “intentionality” effects PEAR and GPS sought and seek to demonstrate exists to be accepted, better demonstrations must be made.

 

Until they are, a reasonable person should accept that these effects may not exist at all, no matter how much some people wish they do. In the absence of a theory that makes prediction that have been experimentally shown to be correct, or a clear demonstration of an effect for which no good explanation has been proposed, the tiny statistical effects that a few people believe are statistically significant, but most well-trained statisticians believe are not, simply are not to be accepted as significant.

[Qfwfq]

but the Copenhagen interpretation is still

the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The conjecture about concious observer has been very much replaced with decoherence. Some consider the CO conjecture as part of the definition of the Copenhagen interpretation, others consider the currently prevailing view as a variant of it, hence the ambiguity.

[UncleAl]

Google

fourmilab "hotbits" 7640 hits

 

http://www.anomalistik.de/sdm_pdfs/etzold.pdf

 

Incredible claims require incredible evidence. If sincere mass thought made any difference at all, Bill Gates would be reduced to a smoking crater so many times/day.

[Don Blazys]

To: Craig D,

 

Quoting Craig D:

The Global Consciousness Project is certainly a fascinating subject.

 

There's an old saying that: "curiosity killed the cat".

However, any cat that is not curious is already dead!

(Including the one in the box.) :eek_big:

 

It is important to be curious about "curiosities" such as the G.C.P. because

it quite often happens that the investigation of some "curiosity" yields important results.

 

Even if the G.C.P. does turm out to be a "dead end street",

at least we will have learned that consciousness can't

effect random number generators, and that would at least

provide another "clue" to the mystery that is "consciousness".

 

Indeed, sometimes the failure of an experiment leads

sufficiently curious investigators to results that are absolutely mind bending.

 

For instance, the Michelson-Morely experiment seemed an abysmal failure... at first,

but it helped prompt the insatiably curious Albert Einstein to investigate further,

and he, in turn, provided the solution to what most other scientists believed was

a matter not even worth investigating.

 

That solution, of course, was "special relativity".

 

Quoting Craig D:

....a reasonable person should accept that these effects may not exist at all, no matter how much some people wish they do. In the absence of a theory that makes prediction that have been experimentally shown to be correct, or a clear demonstration of an effect for which no good explanation has been proposed, the tiny statistical effects that a few people believe are statistically significant, but most well-trained statisticians believe are not, simply are not to be accepted as significant.

 

As I'm sure you know, I am a most reasonable and humble Hypographer.

I am well aware of the fact that the evidence is by no means "overwhelming",

and may even be "non-existent" pending further investigation.

 

Don.