At 1:30 he states that systems are 'biased in the direction that you want them to to'. That is a lie. Unless he gives me the name of the published studies that confirm this, I'll just dismiss his evidence-free lies.

At 2:24 he talks about 'biases that show up in the randomness' and mentions that there are studies that show this. What studies? With their names and the names of their authors that doesn't do us any good. Vaguely mentioning that there is evidence that supports you doesn't count. Either name the studies or don't make claims that the statistics back you up.

At 3:00: "When you attend to something it changes." Nope. He'll need to give us the name of the peer-reviewed publication that states this.

He spends the third minute talking about experiments, yet not telling us where he published the results or the names of the articles he published on them. It verged on being useful, but it never crossed the threshold of actually telling us how to find the published articles on this.

At 5:05: "We found very clear evidence that there was very clear order in the randomness." Ok, so he says. And where did he publish this 'very clear evidence'?

At 7:10 "We published it in the Foundations of Physics Letters." Pay dirt! Finally, something that can be verified. He didn't give the title of his publication, but I'll search for his name and the journal's name to find it.

So what they do is they wait until their random number generators produce non-random appearing sequences. Then they declare that must mean that people's attention is on something and they find what that thing must be. So they retroactively search to find events that must cause the generators to act up. If a major event occurs and the generators are normal they discount it. If a major event occurs and the generators are doing statistically unlikely things they count that as evidence that they are correct. It is a classic case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses. It is actually kind of plain and boring that this is a simple case of confirmation bias. Am I the only one here who sees the confirmation bias that is blinding these researchers?

I tried to get "Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events" to open on my computer, but the PDF for it is busted. I can access the journal for free using my university's library website, but Adobe says that the PDF is formatted incorrectly. If anyone can get it to open I would appreciate to hear about it.

All I can say here is: confirmation bias for the loss.

HA! BEAT YOU TO IT!

Paisley, for future reference, while a YouTube video does technically count as evidence, it isn't very good evidence.

Jormungander!  You couldn't possibly be stating that Radin has attempted to use wishful thinking to prove the validity of wishful thinking.

I wonder if he has a set of rules on what exactly attentiveness can and can not accomplish.  I just want to use it to win me some money.

Interesting discussion. There are a few things that lead me to believe that Radin himself is not unbiased, but that's not too unusual: as humans, it's hard for us (even as scientists) to remain truly objective about the research we do. (As I haven't done research since my physics student days, please don't assume I mean "we" to specifically include me; I just mean "we" as a species.)

First, and perhaps most telling, is the statement concerning causal links at 1:00: "...unmediated links -- or mediated, we don't know by what yet..." This statement seems to imply he believes the links are mediated, without any real evidence that these links truly exist, or any reasons as to why or how they would be mediated.

Then, at 3:52, he states that these links are "sometimes due only to attention." This is interesting, as he doesn't explain the distinction between those that are due only to attention, and those that are not.  At 7:30, he then states that randomness decreased a couple of hours before the 9/11 attacks. This is strange: as there was no global attention to the attacks until the attacks happened, this indicates that either the decrease in randomness isn't due to attention, or that the collective mind can see hours into the future, which precludes free will, as events would have to be fixed hours in advance for attention to be implicated in the decrease of randomness.

Question: how was the baseline established? Do they constantly track times when the data is less random, and attempt to correlate them against world events (allowing for selection bias), or do they only calculate order surrounding important events (allowing for selection bias)?

This is evidenced by the statistics surrounding the funerals of Princess Diana (less random) and Mother Teresa (more random). Why was one less random than the other? Is it, as Roger Nelson put forth, that one was "more emotional?" If so, how was the level of "emotion" determined? Further, is it "emotion" or "attention" that affects the randomness? It seems like Nelson (a lead in these experiments) is trying to have it both ways.

Radin and his cohorts have some interesting results, but there are still questions about the validity of the evidence (as Hamby has pointed out). It seems their process is wide open to selection bias, which would be my biggest concern. However, if their experimental procedure is sound (hard to tell, and hard to accomplish), they have some interesting results.

Well, if Paisley stays to current form, this thread wil be abandoned and another one saying the same thing will miraculously begin.

Hamby, how could I have forgotten about Plan B?

I tried to change it and it went chaotic ape-foo so I removed it.

That's what she said.

Is it bad that after sex, my girlfriend always says, "You know... it's the little things you do..."

To assess this, we really need to know the details of the equipment and the analysis, not just the investigator's comments on it.

What kind of RNG? I think the best ones are based around specially selected semiconductor diodes. measuring the thermal noise current.

 Then there are ones based on measuring some other natural phenomena which varies in ways not obviously correlated to significant events and applying scrambling algorithms to them, which are significantly more likely to to have some small correlation to other events outside the generator. This would be problematic if you were chasing very low "deviations from randomness".

Then there are psuedo-random number generators, which use mathematical algorithms to generate long sequences of numbers which show extremely low auto-correlation functions (a basic measure of 'randomness'. They will theoretically repeat eventually, but the repeat time can be designed to be as long as you like, with sufficient computation resources. It would be extremely surprising if this class could be effected by any external influences, since that would require a logic circuit to give the 'wrong' output.

There is another problem - any sufficiently long sequence of statistically random numbers is going to display some patterns. In principle, of course, it will contain all possible patterns. The 'randomness', as measured over any finite time interval, is itself going to vary, in a random manner. So you WILL find periods of high and low randomness, regardless of any outside influences.

Seems to me this is a very poor technique to use for the purpose intended, at the very least.

Just FYI. Here's the website link to the "Global Consciousness Project."

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Here's the link to Wikipedia article on the GPJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

If you still have questions concerning peer-review publications, methodology and what not, then consult the GPJ's website. You'll find a wealth of information there.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Interesting. I could find nothing about how they account for selection and confirmation bias, nor anything about how they define significant events, nor anything at all about false hits and false misses.

Also, the whole correlation != causation thing has me wondering why they have reached conclusions about a global mind.

They're quantum-based hardware random number generators. Assuming that quantum theory is correct, then they should truly generate random digital signals (binary zeroes and ones).

What you should find is what is called a "drunkard's walk." When it deviates from this, then something interesting may be happening. The greatest deviation occurred on 9/11 (arguably the most dramatic single event within the last decade). Of course, this wasn't the only deviation. Many others occurred that have been correlated with major world events (e.g. the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean).

Here's the link to the GCP's website. There you will find an up to date summary of results.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ 

Keep in mind that this project developed as a logical extension from earlier experiments in which repeated success was achieved when particular group events (e.g. sporting events, theatre events, religious ceremonies, group meditation, etc.) were studied. With the GCP, the researchers simply wanted to test for major world events for which they could not anticipate (e.g. the 9/11 Terrorist Attack on the WTC).

Paisley,

Without peer-reviewed studies, your threads remind me of the story about the 95 pound woman who carries a full grown cow over a fence near her house every day of her life.

If you ask her nice, she'll show you the fence she carries the cow over.

For an alleged science, they certainly use a lot of the tools of religion (confirmation bias, conclusion first research)

This is where the concept of God the Unknown comes from. All instances of the word 'god' can be replaced by instances of some version of 'the unknown', and in most cases it will make complete grammatical sense, and also explain a lot about the thinking processes involved.

There are different unknowns, of course, so you have God the Unknown Creator, God the Unknown Quantum Cause, etc. But they are all unified by the overall umbrella term 'the Unknown'.

Here's a simple way to test and disprove this silly random number generator crap: Instead of just using one RNG, use several, one group as the experimental one, and one group as the control. If the effects are real and general, then there should be an obvious correlation between the two groups. As one dips, the other should dip along with it. As one rises, the other should rise, in synchrony.

By arbitrarily creating two groups of RNGs, you will more easily be able to see the random noise. If you considered 1000 RNGs, there will be hills and valleys, just naturally, because that's how random number generators work. If there were no hills and valleys, it wouldn't really be random. Throw a million rolls of a die, and you'll see some long periods of 1-3 and some long periods of 4-6. That's just the nature of randomness and statistics.

However, if you split the 1000 RNGs into two groups of 500, you will still see hills and valleys, in each set of 500. However, now you can compare the hills and valleys. If there is a true non-random conscious influence, then both groups of 500 RNGs should be significantly shifted in the same direction. Their hills and valleys should match up like a fingerprint.

They won't, of course. Because the two groups are independent, the hills and valleys of each group will sometimes match up and sometimes be the opposite, just as you would expect for truly random RNGs. If there were really a real effect, then there should be very few occasions where the hills and valleys of each group are opposed. They should almost always line up. If there is any significant deviation between the hills and valleys, which can be tested with standard statistical correlation tests, then the hypothesis is disproven.

Even this test cannot be fooled by confirmation bias. You are comparing two highly random sets against each other, rather than against non-random interpretations of human events. No interpretation is necessary to test the hypothesis. If there is any effect at all, then the RNGs should all be affected in the same way, regardless of what particular event might be happening. If 9/11 causes a dip in one group, it should cause an identical dip in the other group. If there's no correlation between the sets, there's no collective consciousness effect. End of story.

Wait, you mean they didn't do that? Are you telling me they didn't have a control group?

Oh, that's just ... 

Actually, I have no words. That's a kind of fail you can't even see watching Fox News.

I'm not so sure about that... Have you ever seen Glenn Beck?

True, Radin is currently working at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which was founded by astronaut Edgar Mitchell.

Just FYI. The project is the extension of Roger Nelson's work at the "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab." I believe Princeton University has a fairly good reputation in science. 

Just goes to show that even a science degree can't overcome being raised in religious woo-woo.

Exactly.

IOW, no one is unbiased. Therefore, the argument applies equally to materialists as well as nonmaterialists. But this only buttresses the argument that I have repeatedly made on this forum - namely, that scientific data is subject to the personal interpretations of scientists (especially in the area of statistical analysis).

I fail to see your point.

The data can be interpreted to suggest some form of precognition by the collective mind. If this were true, then the RNGs would have a practical use somewhat analogous to the seismometer (i.e. it would let us know if something big was about to happen).

By the way, this does not necessarily preclude free will. In fact, it may speak to a collective free will.

They outlined their methodology on the website for which I have already provided a link. However, regardless of the correlations (as I have stated elsewhere in this thread), you still have to account for why something which is putatively random deviates into something that is orderly.

I don't believe he said anything about Mother Teresa's death. If so, at what time was it mentioned in the video?

Where in the video does Radin even mention this? Or, are you getting this from another source?

Radin said they were testing for "attention," as opposed to "intention" (i.e. psychokinesis, which parapsychologists believe they have already established).

Certainly, we have all experienced a shared emotional experience which connects us with a larger group (e.g. a sporting event in which our team wins the big game in dramatic style). The concept should not be too difficult to grasp. Big events engender big waves in the cosmic "force" (i.e. the field of consciousness).

Yes, at the very least...something interesting is going on.

How does it invalidate free will?

I believe you'll find the answers to these questions on the GCP's website.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Here we go again. Last time you made a thread based off of a video link, someone told you that they watched it three times and you still said that they didn't watch it. No matter what we say or what objections we bring up, you will just say that we didn't watch the video. I even gave a minute-by-minute breakdown of my complaints against this video, but apparently I didn't even watch it.

Come up with arguments to defend this experiment or don't (you have chosen the 'don't' option). But please spare us from your cries of "You didn't watch the video!"