The Evidence for Collective Consciousness

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
The Evidence for Collective Consciousness

Below is a link to a "YouTube" video furnished by the "GlobalOnessProject." Here parapyschologist Dean Radin discusses the results of an ongoing experiment  to test for what effect, if any, that the collective "attentiveness" of a group of human beings may exert on random number generators. The experiment is fairly simple. Can the attentiveness of a group of people change what is intrinsically a random and disorderly process into one that exhibits order? The theory is that the more human beings who participate, the greater the effect. I think the results provide evidence that minds are "entangled" and can be forged to form a collective consciousness. The implications for both science and religion should be obvious. 

Now, I have learned from past experience that there are more than a few individuals on this forum who suffer from ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). That's unfortunate, because this disorder prevents you from not only achieving a long enough attention span to watch a simple video but also from making a major contribution to the collective consciousness. Truly, you have my sympathy. However, for the purposes of this thread, I must insist that you at least attempt to muster up enough energy to watch the video in its entirety before you embark on your drive-by tour, flinging snide comments as you pass by. It's only 9 minutes and 47 seconds long! Yes, I realize from your perspective that this is entirely too long. However, I have FAITH in you and TRUST that you will find the necessary focus to meet this duanting challenge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvJfkI5NVc

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Questions:1) Which science

 Questions:

1) Which science journal are his experiments published in?

2) What is this "our method of analysis" he refers to?

3) How has he eliminated everything but human consciousness as potential causal agents?

4) If he's got a P value of < 0.000001, he's obviously got rigorous standards by which he defines what counts as a significant deviance from randomness.  What are these standards?  

5) How does he account for pattern bias?  That is, within random systems, small pockets of apparent organization often appear by chance, not having been caused by anthing.  They aren't true order.  Yet, a human looking at these seeming patterns will often attribute cause where there is none, supposing that something made order.

In other words, assuming (and it's a big assumption if he hasn't been peer reviewed) that these are legitimate results, fine.  There are apparently pockets of less random numbers when RNGs are allowed to run for a long time.  Noting that they also correspond to significant events in the human world is a minefield.  Who decides what is significant and what is not?  How do we account for distance?  Statistically speaking, at any given moment, something significant is happening somewhere.  Presumably, if we expand our hypothetical range of "conscious influence" far enough, we can probably find a "significant human event" to match each RNG anomaly, but does that prove that there's a correlation, or does it just indicate that we're very good at finding patterns if we're determined enough to do so?

Before you blast me for condemning the concept, reread what I've written and notice that I'm not condeming anything.  I'm asking questions which must be satisfactorily answered before I'll be willing to consider this as a genuinely scientific, falsifiable concept.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
At 1:30 he states that

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.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Radin is from 'The Institute

Radin is from 'The Institute of Noetic Sciences'. Here is their website.

Preconceiving what you want your result to be and doing an experiment to produce said result is not terribly good science. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:[11:45:20 PM] Kevin

Quote:

[11:45:20 PM] Kevin Brown says: http://www.noetic.org/
[11:45:40 PM] Kevin Brown says: I'm sure he had no confirmation bias.

None.

 

HA! BEAT YOU TO IT!

Sticking out tongue

 

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

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Radin is

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Radin is from 'The Institute of Noetic Sciences'. Here is their website.

Preconceiving what you want your result to be and doing an experiment to produce said result is not terribly good science. Sticking out tongue

Are you kidding? That is the best possible way to conduct 'research' when working in pseudo-science. First find the result you want and then manufacture data to find that result. Running those RNGs all the time was a stroke of genius. With enough confirmation bias it will seem as though they are supporting his claims. And since he has run them for years now, he has enough cherry-picked hits and ignored countless misses to convince himself that this is evidence.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander!  You couldn't

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.

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The degree of attentiveness

The degree of attentiveness one devotes to a something can certainly affect one's perception of it, that is well understood.

Sounds like this is as empty a claim as anything else Paisley has presented.

Of course I know this post will be ignored as just another 'drive-by' comment.

Thank you, Jormungander, for saving us the time it would take to sit thru such a crock of shit. It ain't a lot of time, objectively, but even 5 minutes watching such crap can be mind-numbingly tedious.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Interesting discussion.

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.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Dear Paisley

I believe everyone here that has asked legitimate question and has shown that they watched the video. These questions are for the most part, well thoughtout questions that require a well thoughout out response, and not one that A) Attacks the person themselves, B) dismisses their questions because they disagree with your world view. Is it possible for you to properly respond to legitimate questions? Or will you dismiss them because they seem to point out problems with Radin's explaination/experiment and as such differ from your world view? Oh also try not to use your own biased explainations that requrie no scientific merits. As this is supposed to be a scientific evidence that you are supposedly trying to present please try to keep that in mind and try not to use non scientific evidence/terminology/explanation, because again, your trying to use scientific evidence to present your ideas, it's best interest of everyone that it stays within the same topic.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, if Paisley stays to

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

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I dunno, jc.  Since

 I dunno, jc.  Since you've called him out, he'll probably bitch at us for being closedminded in a very flippant, dismissive way, and then go off to write a new thread about the flaw in the atheist mindset.

Or... perhaps, to avoid doing what someone predicted, he'll write a well thought out answer to all of our questions, primarily the ones regarding peer review, repeatability, selection bias, and general methodology.

Anyone holding their breath?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I dunno,

Hambydammit wrote:

 I dunno, jc.  Since you've called him out, he'll probably bitch at us for being closedminded in a very flippant, dismissive way, and then go off to write a new thread about the flaw in the atheist mindset.

Or... perhaps, to avoid doing what someone predicted, he'll write a well thought out answer to all of our questions, primarily the ones regarding peer review, repeatability, selection bias, and general methodology.

Anyone holding their breath?

 

Hamby, how could I have forgotten about Plan B?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 What in the hell did you

 What in the hell did you do to your avatar?

How did you get it to accept such a large size?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I tried to change it and it

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

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 That was impressive, to

 That was impressive, to say the least.  

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: That was

Hambydammit wrote:

 That was impressive, to say the least.  

That's what she said.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 That was impressive, to say the least.  

That's what she said.

She was talking about your nose, right?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Hambydammit

 

Quote:
Hambydammit wrote:

 

 That was impressive, to say the least.  

 

 

That's what she said.

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

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Or...

Hambydammit wrote:

Or... perhaps, to avoid doing what someone predicted, he'll write a well thought out answer to all of our questions, primarily the ones regarding peer review, repeatability, selection bias, and general methodology.

I'm almost more interested in hearing a response to the alleged 9/11 event, in which the dataset became less random hours before 9/11 occurred. This seems to contradict either the hypothesis, or free will.

But I most certainly would like more details about the experiment. For instance, what are they using for random number generators? How is "important event" defined in such a way as to avoid selection bias? What is the ratio of false positives to false negatives? What is the algorithm for aggregating random data from multiple generators? And so on.

Wow. Actually, just sitting here, I can think of at least a dozen questions, all of which would need to be answered before the results could stand.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
To assess this, we really

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.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
When I read the title of the

When I read the title of the thread I thought it was going to be some primary perception bullshit. I was wrong, it's a different kind of bullshit.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Website Link to the "Global Consciousness Project"

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

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10721
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wait a second..Quote:Our

Wait a second..

Quote:

Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We predict structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events. When millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network shows small but meaningful differences from expectation.

This suggests that large scale group consciousness has effects in the physical world. We need to know about this, and learn to use our full capacities for creative movement toward a conscious future.

Uhm...correct me if I'm wrong...but this seems like a basic flaw in logic. Because a great number of people share intention and emotion does not mean they share consciousness. And it seems entirely reasonable to me to assume that a large group of people believing and feeling the same or a similar thing would be the same or similar in expressing it, lending an illusion of group consciousness, which is merely individual consciousness magnified by numbers.

or something...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Before you

Hambydammit wrote:
Before you blast me for condemning the concept, reread what I've written and notice that I'm not condeming anything.  I'm asking questions which must be satisfactorily answered before I'll be willing to consider this as a genuinely scientific, falsifiable concept. 

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/

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
For some reason, i cant

For some reason, i cant shake the thought of this being a...

"If enough people believe it, it must be true!" arguement

 

 

What Would Kharn Do?


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Here's the

Paisley wrote:

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.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I just read the wikipedia

I just read the wikipedia page. Guess what I found on its talk page?

Quote:

Hello? Confirmation bias ring a bell?

Did any of these researchers bother coming up with strict standards for what defines a significant event? No, they didn't. Did they define how long readings should be considered related to those events? No, they didn't. Did the researchers account for and weigh misses the same as they did for hits? No, they didn't. Did the researchers compare those supposedly statistical readings to a random sample of readings, in order to account for random pools of apparent statistical significance? No, they didn't.

Their methodology appears strict only on the surface, but they fail to account for bias or follow all the rigors of the scientific method.

It seems that other people have the same complaints that I do. Somewhere out there a skeptic is rolling his eyes in disbelief that scientists would allow bias to blind them like this.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:To assess

BobSpence1 wrote:
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.

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).

BobSpence1 wrote:
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.

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/ 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Seems to me this is a very poor technique to use for the purpose intended, at the very least.

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).

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
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.

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).

Which is essentially the same class of thing as thermal noise current generators. OK.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
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.

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/ 

Can't load that URL. I looked at the earlier Wkipedia page.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Seems to me this is a very poor technique to use for the purpose intended, at the very least.

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).

It certainly shows than any effect is extremely small. I couldn't see whether they had compared the effects of straightforward physical effects, such as comparing the results when, say, a strong magnetic field was switched on for the duration of a typical run and see if that had any detectable effect. Seems to me that sort of 'control' test should have been an obvious one. Similarly one could see if there was any correlation with the local strength of gravity at each RNG.

Since conscious events are definitely associated with measurably different electrical activities in the brain, it would seem to be a serious omission to not attempt to compare the effect of such physical phenomenon, especially if they used, say, a device generating varying magnetic fields with similar frequencies to those measured in the brain while the various mental states were being concentrated on by the participants. They could be made much stronger. Unless this was done, one could not eliminate 'physical' effects rather than purely 'mental', whatever that may actually mean.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley,Without

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.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:What you

Paisley wrote:

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).

Right. And for other world events, nothing happened. There have been many times when the random numbers were less random, and no significant world event occured. What you have here is confirmation bias.

If the 9/11 had the greatest deviation, then, according to a paper published on their site:

E. C. May, Ph.D. and S. James P. Spottiswoode, B.Sc. wrote:

The fact remains that if our analyses and interpretations of the data are correct, then it is our view that the worldwide network of EGG’s did not respond to the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

And:

Quote:

Therefore we conclude that the EGG network did not significantly respond to the single largest, emotional, fearful, and well-publicized event in US history.

For this, you should be thankful. If their hypothesis was correct, and if the experimental data was truly due to those events, then their 9/11 interpretation would leave no room for libertarian free will, as the increase in order came well before the event occurred.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Kevin R

Jormungander wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Radin is from 'The Institute of Noetic Sciences'. Here is their website.

Preconceiving what you want your result to be and doing an experiment to produce said result is not terribly good science. Sticking out tongue

Are you kidding? That is the best possible way to conduct 'research' when working in pseudo-science. First find the result you want and then manufacture data to find that result. Running those RNGs all the time was a stroke of genius. With enough confirmation bias it will seem as though they are supporting his claims. And since he has run them for years now, he has enough cherry-picked hits and ignored countless misses to convince himself that this is evidence.

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

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:For an

jcgadfly wrote:

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

It is a religion. Replace an unknown god with the unknown fundamentals of quantum mechanics, and you have the First Church of the Quantum Woo.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:jcgadfly

nigelTheBold wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

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

It is a religion. Replace an unknown god with the unknown fundamentals of quantum mechanics, and you have the First Church of the Quantum Woo.

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.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:It seems

Jormungander wrote:

It seems that other people have the same complaints that I do. Somewhere out there a skeptic is rolling his eyes in disbelief that scientists would allow bias to blind them like this.

... and then be magnified by the process of meta-analysis, the only real criticism of which is that it cannot account for bias.

Wait ... yes ... I'm sensing ... something in the Force ... it's ...

Oh, it's huge lies.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Here's a

natural wrote:
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.

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.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

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.

LOLOLOL

I'm gonna use that one.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Actually,

HisWillness wrote:

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?

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:At 7:10

Jormungander wrote:
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.

You'll find a link to the publication at the Bourdary Institute website link provided below.

http://boundary.org/bi/randomness.htm

Jormungander wrote:
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 think there is something significant in the data that you are missing here. Irrespective of the said correlations with major world events, you have to explain why something which is intrinsically random (i.e. the generation of binary digits by the RNGs) is behaving nonrandomly. Of course, you can say that it is due purely to chance. However, if these nonrandom deviations keep occurring over time on a farily consistent basis, then the probabilities that they are due purely to chance become increasingly...well...IMPROBABLE! IOW, if I keep winning the state lottery on a regular basis, there's probably going to come a time when someone in high places will be forced to say  "Hey, what the hell is going on here?!"

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Radin is

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Radin is from 'The Institute of Noetic Sciences'. Here is their website.

Preconceiving what you want your result to be and doing an experiment to produce said result is not terribly good science. :P

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

Quote:
During the three-day journey back to Earth aboard Apollo 14, Mitchell had an epiphany while looking down on the earth from space. "The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes ... The knowledge came to me directly," Mitchell said of that experience. Following his spaceflight, Mitchell and others founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences.[9]

(source: Wikipedia: Institute of Noetic Science)

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

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. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Of course I

BobSpence1 wrote:
Of course I know this post will be ignored as just another 'drive-by' comment.

You're correct!

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kevin R Brown

Paisley wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Radin is from 'The Institute of Noetic Sciences'. Here is their website.

Preconceiving what you want your result to be and doing an experiment to produce said result is not terribly good science. :P

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

Quote:
During the three-day journey back to Earth aboard Apollo 14, Mitchell had an epiphany while looking down on the earth from space. "The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes ... The knowledge came to me directly," Mitchell said of that experience. Following his spaceflight, Mitchell and others founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences.[9]

(source: Wikipedia: Institute of Noetic Science)

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

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.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I think there

Paisley wrote:

I think there is something significant in the data that you are missing here. Irrespective of the said correlations with major world events, you have to explain why something which is intrinsically random (i.e. the generation of binary digits by the RNGs) is behaving nonrandomly.

All RNGs show periods of non-randomness. There is nothing here for me to explain. I'm not missing anything here. Rather, this is so unremarkable that it means nothing. An RNG deviating from an expected mean value doesn't mean anything.

 

Paisley wrote:

However, if these nonrandom deviations keep occurring over time on a farily consistent basis, then the probabilities that they are due purely to chance become increasingly...well...IMPROBABLE! IOW, if I keep winning the state lottery on a regular basis, there's probably going to come a time when someone in high places will be forced to say  "Hey, what the hell is going on here?!"

RNGs will appear at times to be non-random. Watch one long enough and you will find pockets of seemingly non-random numbers. You winning the lottery over and over again is freakishly unlikely. RNGs producing seemingly non-random sequences on the other hand, is bound to happen. The fact of the matter is that the RNGs are certain to produce sequences of numbers that deviate from the expecte mean.

My problem here is that they look at RNGs, notice that some sequences of numbers deviate from an expected mean, and then declare that attentiveness causes it. That is not justified. I'm confused as to why they think that is justified.

Thanks for the link. I honestly coudn't find this paper elsewhere. Even the publication's own website had a non-functioning link to the PDF.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:All RNGs

Jormungander wrote:
All RNGs show periods of non-randomness. There is nothing here for me to explain.

Exactly.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Of course I know this post will be ignored as just another 'drive-by' comment.

You're correct!

This is funny, as all your threads appear to be drive-by threads. Post something as "scientific evidence," and don't bother responding when people point out how the evidence is weak, and the explanations non-existent.

Further, there is the whole logical conundrum of libertarian free will that you have not addressed. If this experiment is valid, and the results conclusive, then libertarian free will cannot exist, as the non-random period of 9/11 started before the planes had even taken off. This is only consistent with a deterministic universe, and not one in which libertarian free will exists.

So, which bit of woo do you wish to give up? Or, do you have some supportable hypothesis that explains how this does not invalidate libertarian free will?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:
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.)

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).

nigelTheBold wrote:
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.

I fail to see your point.

nigelTheBold wrote:
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.

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.

nigelTheBold wrote:
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)

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.

nigelTheBold wrote:
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?

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

nigelTheBold wrote:
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.

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).

nigelTheBold wrote:
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.

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

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:I believe

latincanuck wrote:
I believe everyone here that has asked legitimate question and has shown that they watched the video.

I don't believe everyone has actually watched the video.

latincanuck wrote:
These questions are for the most part, well thoughtout questions that require a well thoughout out response, and not one that A) Attacks the person themselves, B) dismisses their questions because they disagree with your world view.

The so-called "well thought-out responses" are actually are ad hominem attacks.  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I'm

nigelTheBold wrote:
I'm almost more interested in hearing a response to the alleged 9/11 event, in which the dataset became less random hours before 9/11 occurred. This seems to contradict either the hypothesis, or free will.

How does it invalidate free will?

nigelTheBold wrote:
But I most certainly would like more details about the experiment. For instance, what are they using for random number generators? How is "important event" defined in such a way as to avoid selection bias? What is the ratio of false positives to false negatives? What is the algorithm for aggregating random data from multiple generators? And so on.

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

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Any indication of a

Any indication of a prediction of future events is a problem for free-will, because it points to the events being pre-determined.

Results showing up before the event, IOW before there was any consciousness of the event, would contradict the hypothesis that the result was caused by the consciousness of the event.

Or else it indicates they are so determined to find matches between events and signals on the RNG's they will accept events which do not match at all well in time, which puts a big question mark over the rigour of their analysis.

If Paisley can't comprehend either of these points, he just confirms his intellectual incompetence.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
I believe everyone here that has asked legitimate question and has shown that they watched the video.

I don't believe everyone has actually watched the video.

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!"

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India