Can Consciousness Effect Random Number Generators?

[Qfwfq]

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

It was reasonable to perform the MM experiments and it was reasonable to take the negative result seriously, Einstein certainly wasn't the only loony that strove to match things up! Actually, the sticky issue began as the result of Maxwell's equations. The mystery was already out, and it was the negative result that seemed absurd, that's what the actual interesting thing was despite you calling it "an abysmal failure" and it was unequivocal by the time they quit.

 

If the evidence becomes compelling enough, it will become reasonable for more folks to think about it. Apart from the fact that I don't even see the nexus with Copenhagen as being all that precise, I can't remember that source even saying what kind of generators they are, based on which kind of randomness? What kind of [imath]\chi^2[/imath] test have they checked?

[CraigD]

... I can't remember that source even saying what kind of generators they are, based on which kind of randomness? What kind of [imath]\chi^2[/imath] test have they checked?

The random number generators used by the Global Consciousness Project are known as “Princeton EGGs”, a playful acronym standing for “Electro Gaia Gram”. They’re described as equivalent to high-speed fair coin-toss counters, each producing the sum of bits of a 200 bit value once per second. Thus the random numbers generated should follow a binomial distribution with mean 100 and variance 50.

 

Though I’ve not found a schematic diagram of one, a summary description is included in many document from the GCP, such as The EGG story, from which I also got the above, and which includes some sample statistics. They’re said to “work with measurements of ‘white noise’ like the random static between radio stations”, recording a 1 bit if a sampled amplitude exceeds the average, a 0 if it’s below.

[Don Blazys]

To: Uncle Al,

 

Quoting Uncle Al:

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.

 

Most people don't hate Bill Gates, and are probably

too busy to give him much thought anyway.

Personally, in the past five years or so,

Bill Gates crossed my mind only three times,

two of those times as a result of your posts.

 

Adolph Hitler, on the other hand, was quite hated,

and was indeed and quite literally, "reduced to a smoking crater" !

 

Anyway, that link that you posted to an article in "The Journal Of Parapsychology"

seems to imply that the "incredible claims" being made by those

"cranks" and "crackpots" at Princeton University are not backed up by substantial evidence.

 

However, on their website, they claim that the odds are actually

"one in a million" that their results are due to chance.

(That's a probability of almost 1 that their results are not a matter of luck,

which they then have the audacity to claim is "highly significant".)

Moreover, they also claim that the statistical analysis

of their results is both rigorous and sophisticated.

 

Now, I have no idea why their website does not include the actual

equations, algorithms, programs and printouts of their

"sophisticated statistical analysis", and can only conjecture that perhaps...

just perhaps...they did not want to "bore us with details".

 

Thus, we are supposed to assume that the scientists at Princeton are competent and that

the tables and graphs on their website are based on sound mathematical principles.

 

Don.

[JMJones0424]

Don- Have you ever heard of people who "claim" to have evidence of ghosts because they use equipment outside of its designed purpose and claim to be picking up the electro-magnetic signature of spirits? The fault in their argument is that all they have proved is that an electro-magnetic field exists. They never make the attempt to prove that ghosts exist, and moreover, that ghosts produce electro-magnetic fields.

 

This experiment at face-value appears to be just a ludicrous. I can not claim to be competent enough to adequately audit there techniques. However, unless they have gone through GREAT lengths to eliminate all other more reasonable sources of statistical deviation, it appears that they are deluding themselves and finding evidence amongst what amounts to be mostly noise.

 

You claim that because a small number of Princeton professors are involved, then it must be legitimate. I could also claim because the vast majority of Princeton professors are not involved, it is not legitimate. The fact of the matter is that neither claim has any ability to actually determine if the science they are performing is legitimate. Only by properly auditing their methods and reproducing their results can one draw meaningful conclusions as to the veracity of their claims.

 

Like Percival Lowell, it is not uncommon for otherwise legitimate scientist to be deluded by their own desires and either incorrectly design experiments, or incorrectly draw conclusions based off of their observations. Without knowing anything about their ability to actually produce a truly random string of numbers (which is surprisingly harder than one might think), all they have done so far is identified patterns in the "randomness" of their generators. This could just as easily be proof that their random number generators are not sufficiently random. I would like to see a list of all the times they got a "positive" result without being able to correlate that result to some global event. And I would also like to see a list of dates were there was a significant global event, and yet they did not observe statistical deviation. Any successful theory would need to be able to account for both of these situations. There needs to be more objective analysis of their data, because, as Uncle Al said, and Carl Sagan before him, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Don Blazys]

To: JMJomes0424,

 

Quoting JMJones0424:

Don- Have you ever heard of people who "claim" to have evidence of ghosts because they use equipment outside of its designed purpose and claim to be picking up the electro-magnetic signature of spirits? The fault in their argument is that all they have proved is that an electro-magnetic field exists. They never make the attempt to prove that ghosts exist, and moreover, that ghosts produce electro-magnetic fields.

 

I agree, maybe what the G.C.P. is measuring is not "consciousness" at all.

Indeed, many of the "anomolous spikes" that occur during some "significant" event

begin just before the actual event occurs !

 

For instance, the "spike" that those "random number generators" produced on 9-11 began

several hours before the airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!

 

Thus, perhaps what is being measured is a "disturbance in the Force", :)

that precedes or even causes, some particular event. Nobody really knows.

The "anomalous" element in all this is that the "spikes" produced by those

randon number generators do seem to correlate with significant events

much better than "chance" would normally allow.

 

Quoting JMJones0424:

You claim that because a small number of Princeton professors are involved, then it must be legitimate. I could also claim because the vast majority of Princeton professors are not involved, it is not legitimate. The fact of the matter is that neither claim has any ability to actually determine if the science they are performing is legitimate. Only by properly auditing their methods and reproducing their results can one draw meaningful conclusions as to the veracity of their claims.

 

I'm claiming nothing of the sort.

In fact, I agree with you, Craig D and qfwfq that G.C.P. is probably just a dead end street.

(Kind of like S.E.T.I. ..., a lofty goal with mind boggling consequences, but little chance of success.)

However, in this thread, (and only for the sake of discussion), I'm the "Devil's advocate":edevil:.

 

Also, the G.C.P. is much larger than just "a small number of Princeton professors".

There are literally thousands of scientists from around the world who are

involved in this in one way or another.

 

Don.

[Donk]

I'm reminded of a passage in Last and First Men, by Olaf Stapledon.

It was discovered that something queer was happening to the moon; in fact, that the orbit of the satellite was narrowing in upon the earth in a manner contrary to all the calculations of the scientists... It was left to a future and more brilliant species to discover the connection between a planet's gravitation and its cultural development.

Stapledon isn't saying that such a connection is possible, just that we should keep our minds open to things that seem counter-intuitive.

[TheBigDog]

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.

Perhaps he already is. Imagine the group think justice is in tune with what those who are part of the group believe to be the ultimate evil; money. Bill Gates is being pummeled and punished every second of the day with the evil burden of riches.

[Don Blazys]

To: Donk

 

Quoting Donk:

Stapledon isn't saying that such a connection is possible, just that we should keep our minds open to things that seem counter-intuitive.

 

Thanks Donk. Well said.

 

I consider myself to be an "open minded skeptic".

The "open minded" part of that description comes naturally,

mostly from curiosity, but also from the sheer "entertainment value"

of "counterintuitive notions" (regardless of whether or not those notions are true or false)

and from the fact that mankind needs a good miracle or two, in order to induce

within it's ranks, a desperately needed spirit of reason, friendship and cooperation.

 

Most people are curious... and even hopefull about projects like the G.C.P. and S.E.T.I.,

and I am quite certain that the next time some major world changing event occurs,

every Hypographer who read this thread will go to the G.C.P. website,

and will check whether or not the output from those R.N.G's was effected yet again.

 

"Curiosities" are called that because they make us curious,

and folks who truly enjoy science, enjoy it because it satisfies their curiosity.

It's almost like an addiction. They just can't help it. They just have to look.

 

Don.

[Don Blazys]

To:TheBigDog,

 

Quoting TheBigDog:

Perhaps he already is. Imagine the group think justice is in tune with what those who are part of the group believe to be the ultimate evil; money. Bill Gates is being pummeled and punished every second of the day with the evil burden of riches.

 

Our Lord Jesus Christ once remarked that: "It is harder for a rich man to get to heaven,

than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle".

 

Albert Einstein, who insisted that: "Science without religion is lame,

and religion without science is blind", gave his Nobel Prize money to his ex-wife,

and never even opened or cashed many of his paychecks, but used them as "bookmarks".

 

As far as I'm concerned, the filthy rich can take their money and "go shopping".

 

Don.

[Qfwfq]

They’re said to “work with measurements of ‘white noise’ like the random static between radio stations”, recording a 1 bit if a sampled amplitude exceeds the average, a 0 if it’s below.

Thanks. I imagined it would be white noise, though it doesn't specify the source of it. I wonder if the data are compensated for misadjustment by xoring pairs of consecutive bits?

 

Adolph Hitler, on the other hand, was quite hated,

and was indeed and quite literally, "reduced to a smoking crater" !

But it wasn't sufficient for people to just think!

 

For instance, the "spike" that those "random number generators" produced on 9-11 began

several hours before the airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!

So did the stock market bear. Can we deduce anything from that?

 

In fact, I agree with you, Craig D and qfwfq that G.C.P. is probably just a dead end street.

Indeed their claim is a strange one, wouldn't the Strange Claims Forum have been a better place to put it?

[TheBigDog]

To:TheBigDog,

 

Quoting TheBigDog:

 

Our Lord Jesus Christ once remarked that: "It is harder for a rich man to get to heaven,

than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle".

 

Albert Einstein, who insisted that: "Science without religion is lame,

and religion without science is blind", gave his Nobel Prize money to his ex-wife,

and never even opened or cashed many of his paychecks, but used them as "bookmarks".

 

As far as I'm concerned, the filthy rich can take their money and "go shopping".

 

Don.

As Tevia said, if money is a curse may God smite me! And may I never recover!

[Don Blazys]

To: qfwfq,

 

Quoting qfwfq:

But it wasn't sufficient for people to just think!

 

Sure it was. People were thinking: "Why don't you go kill yourself, you son of a %&*@#",

and that's exactly what he did ! :wub:

 

Quoting qfwfq:

So did the stock market bear. Can we deduce anything from that?

 

No, we can't. But here's an idea. If the scientists heading the G.C.P. were to

organize a series of "events" whereby every human being on this planet tried

at the exact same time to "influence" the random number generators

by thinking of something extremely pleasant (like the music of Mozart)

or something extremely unpleasant (like the "music" of Snoop Doggy Poop),

then maybe we wouldn't have to wait for "thought galvanizing events" to occur.

 

Quoting qfwfq:

Indeed their claim is a strange one, wouldn't the Strange Claims Forum have been a better place to put it?

 

Perhaps, but since this particular strange claim was being made by scientists at Princeton,

I wanted to share it with as many Hypographers as possible,

and the "Physics and Math" section seems to have the largest number of readers.

 

However, if the moderators decide to move this thread to the "Strange Claims" section,

then I will not protest.

 

Don.

[HydrogenBond]

I am not sure if consciousness can effect random number generators, but it appears that random number generators can effect consciousness. If you fixate on this effect, reality starts to look this way. It is like buying a new car. All of a sudden you start to notice the same make, model and color each day in the environment, when before it never entered your mind to the same level.

 

My mind assumes order. I just assume some things looks sort of random, only because I don't have a good enough understanding. If you look at the distant past, at one time pixies and sprites ruled the forest at night. The pixies made the night forest look like a random number (event) generator. But that random generator was in the mind and was due to lack of logical explanations.

 

With the age of reason, the random fixation of the night forest narrowed as the mind began to control and replace this old internal random number generator. But before that, it would have been hard to convince anyone, that the forest wasn't a casino at night under the laws of chance. In this case, the mind did learn to control a random number generator, because it was never really random, but only appeared that way due to lack of understanding.

[Don Blazys]

Quoting Myself:

Most people are curious...

and even hopefull about projects like the G.C.P. and S.E.T.I.,

and I am quite certain that the next time some major world changing event occurs,

every Hypographer who read this thread will go to the G.C.P. website,

and will check whether or not the output from those R.N.G's was effected yet again.

 

The recent earthquake in Haiti registered "significantly".

 

Imagine that!

 

Don.

[SamSpeedo]

Are dey Random Number Generators if Consciousness Effects em?

[Don Blazys]

To: SamSpeedo,

 

Quoting SamSpeedo:

Are dey Random Number Generators if Consciousness Effects em?

 

Good point.

 

Perhaps they are random number generators until consciousness effects them.

 

Maybe the effect is noticable only if a sufficiently large percentage of the population

is thinking or feeling the same thing at the same time.

 

Who knows? Theories are a dime a dozen, and your guess is as good as mine.

 

Suffice it to say that the ongoing experiment is certainly interesting enough to follow.

 

Don.

[SmoothHerring]

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.

 

It seems that they are specifying the direction of variance in their hypotheses: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html

 

I find it interesting that they are able to continnually accumulate the total Z-score with the predictions on a seemingly random data.