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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The so-called

Paisley wrote:

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

hmmm I have to ask, are you mentally retarded, Hamby, Jormungander and Nigels questions were legitamite questions not ad hominem attacks at all.

From hamby

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.

I do not see an ad hominem attack here, can you point it out for me.

from Jorgungander

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.

From Nigel

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.

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.

Now these guys have shown that they viewed the video, asked specific questions, and they are not ad hominem attacks at all

Ad Hominem: consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence gainst the claim.

So paisley stop embarrassing yourself with you lack of knowledge of defintion of words, and address the very legitimate questions they ask.


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
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.

It's a valid website link. I suggest you try again.

BobSpence1 wrote:
It certainly shows than any effect is extremely small.

It's a statistically significant effect. That's all that is required. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
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.

The RNGs are environmentally shielded from electromagnetism.

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


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

Paisley wrote:

It's a statistically significant effect. That's all that is required. 

As pointed out earlier, no, it's not.

PS - I think the most honest moment in the video is towards the end where he says, "At this point, we don't know if this is just a lot of human minds affecting randomness or ..." and then he goes off into an unrelated hypothesis which strays way outside the range of the correlation they claim.

I have no problem with the man making the claim of minds affecting randomness. I mean, it's wacky, but if it can be isolated and shown to be an effect, then he no longer has to call himself a "parapsychologist", he's just doing an odd statistical survey.

But it's tough, once again, to side with the guy because of his use of meta-analysis in this case. In fact, I'm having a hard time seeing why it would be necessary to use meta-analysis with completely identical studies. It's not clear what he defines as "order" and "randomness", either. Since they're only looking at specific events, there's no indication how many periods of "order" occur during a day without something specific happening. That would answer the question a lot better than he has with his claim of "a million to one against".

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


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

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

I believe your fellow atheist (HisWillness) stated in another thread that all we have is "correlations and observations," no causation.

Incidentally, Radin did not dogmatically conclude that there is a collective mind. He merely suggested that it is a possibility. He also stated that he does not know how the arrow of causation plays itself out. In fact, he said it may be acausal. If you had actually watched the video, then you would have known this. I see that  you have reverted to your standard modus operandi - i.e. "I will simply go to my favorite skeptical blog site and see what information I can dredge up on the GCP." 

"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
Jormungander wrote:Here we

Jormungander wrote:
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.

I believe I provided you with the link to the peer-review article. There really wasn't anymore to your post than that.

Jormungander wrote:
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!"

I'm still eargerly awaiting your acknowledgment that quantum indeterminacy does actually mean that there are random physical events. Until then, it would pointless to move forward.

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


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisely wrote:I believe I

Paisely wrote:
I believe I provided you with the link to the peer-review article. There really wasn't anymore to your post than that.

My post had my complaints about this experiment in it. You didn't bother answering to the complaints, and that is fine, but don't now act like I didn't clearly explain what is wrong with that experiment.

Here is from my first in this thread:

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?

So my post just contained a request for the article and didn't have anything more to it? Thanks for the link, but don't pretend that there wasn't anything more to my post.

Others have also pointed out problems in the experiment that you haven't tried argue against. My complaints against the experiment aren't special or unique. I found identicle complaints on wikipedia, nigelTheBold came up with some valid complaints and BobSpence1 came up with other complaints.

 

Paisely wrote:
I'm still eargerly awaiting your acknowledgment that quantum indeterminacy does actually mean that there are random physical events.

Don't hold your breath. Quantum indterminacy has to do with describing systems using probability distrobutions. You can not with high accuracy measure the values of all variables within a system. So instead we use probability distributions to represent the properties of quantum systems. Can you clearly explain how our inability to accurately know all of the values of a system's variables means that random physical events occur? Show me the non-deterministic part of the wave function and I will believe you. I'll believe in non-deterministic quantum events the day that someone shows me the non-deterministic part of the Schrodinger Equation.

"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


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Don't

Jormungander wrote:

Don't hold your breath. Quantum indterminacy has to do with describing systems using probability distrobutions. You can not with high accuracy measure the values of all variables within a system. So instead we use probability distributions to represent the properties of quantum systems. Can you clearly explain how our inability to accurately know all of the values of a system's variables means that random physical events occur? Show me the non-deterministic part of the wave function and I will believe you. I'll believe in non-deterministic quantum events the day that someone shows me the non-deterministic part of the Schrodinger Equation.

So-called 'quantum indeterminacy' is a bogus term. All that has been demonstrated is quantum uncertainty and probabilistic wave distributions. Neither of these have been shown to be actually non-deterministic. There is no actual 'quantum indeterminacy' in physics. It is, at best, one possible interpretation of QM, but in the case of Paisley and his pseudoscientific buddies, it's a nonsense term to bolster their quantum mysticism.

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!


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
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.

I see. This subject actually surfaced before in another thread where someone presented Benjamin Libet's research on decision-making as evidence that free will is illusory. Evidently, Libet was able to demonstrate that neural activity occurs several seconds prior to the conscious-awareness of actually making a decision. However, I argued that this evidence can be interpreted as evidence for precognition (which it most certainly can). Therefore, I'm willing to concede free will if you're willing to affirm the reality of precognition. If not, then no deal!

There are two main reasons why the evidence for parapsychology meets such strong resistance in the scientific community:

1) It is believed that it disconfirms materialism (which it does).

2) It is commonly believed that it violates known physical laws (which is not necessarily true).

Also, keep in mind that parapyschology meets strong resistance in the religious community (especially from religious conservatives and fundamentalists).

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
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.

It's a valid website link. I suggest you try again.

I have since been able to load it Ok.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It certainly shows than any effect is extremely small.

It's a statistically significant effect. That's all that is required. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
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.

The RNGs are environmentally shielded from electromagnetism.

I was more concerned with direct tests of just how sensitive the RNGs actually were to such fields, which would be important information, especially when looking for such small effects.

I also found a paper by researches who were not opposed to this research in principle, but were concerned to point out problems with the analysis techniques. The showed that the 9/11 correlation was very problematic, dominated by a few spikes in correlation which don't themselves match up well with the significant events, and indeed one is three hours before anyone apart from the terrorists themselves had any consciousness of the event. The pattern of correlation across the period covering all the events changes quite a lot for different parameters in the analysis, from modest correlation to negligible.

That such an event having such a massive impact on human consciousness should have such ambiguous and uncertain effects on the RNG data throws the central hypothesis severely into question.

I think the researchers are sincere, and there may well be some anomalies not easily explained, but the 'collective consciousness' hypothesis is not strongly supported by the evidence, IMHO. The article I read is at www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/Sep1101.pdf

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
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

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

I believe your fellow atheist (HisWillness) stated in another thread that all we have is "correlations and observations," no causation.

Incidentally, Radin did not dogmatically conclude that there is a collective mind. He merely suggested that it is a possibility. He also stated that he does not know how the arrow of causation plays itself out. In fact, he said it may be acausal. If you had actually watched the video, then you would have known this. I see that  you have reverted to your standard modus operandi - i.e. "I will simply go to my favorite skeptical blog site and see what information I can dredge up on the GCP." 

Paisley,

I provided times in my references to the video so that I could avoid this stupid accusation. I understand that your inability to answer the various criticisms here might be a tad frustrating for you, but that is no reason to plug your ears, sing *la-la-la I'm not listening because you didn't watch the video!*, and pretend as if you're engaging in an intellectual discussion.

He said many things in the video, but the primary assertion both in the video and on the website is that there is a global mind that affects the RNGs. This assertion is based on spurious and statistically-questionable data. One of the data points that they and you keep bringing up is the 9/11 incident, in which some of the RNGs displayed less-random data both hours before, and after the 9/11 event. As I said above, and you have mentioned on several occassions, correlation does not equal causation.

Your simple-minded sophostry notwithstanding, Radin is making statements concerning causation, as you are also doing. Otherwise, this thread would not be titled "The Evidence for Collective Consciousness." It would be titled, "interesting statistics concerning world events and RNGs."

"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


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

Paisley wrote:

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

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

No, you won't. The nature of the RNGs I found, but nothing concerning the criteria for determining what marks an important event, nor the rate of false positives, false negatives, and hits. There are many, many questions they do not answer on their website. So quit referring us to it and admit that you don't know the answers to these very important questions.

Quit giving us drive-by comments.

"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


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

Paisley wrote:

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

How does it not preclude libertarian free will? If the results from the 9/11 data are valid, then the event was fixed before the planes ever left the ground. This precludes libertarian free will as it means the passengers did not have the free will to attack the hijackers and prevent the event. It means that the event was determined before it ever happened.

Quote:

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?

No, it wasn't in the video. I obtained data from other sources in addition to watching the video, after I offered my first reaction to the video.

Thanks for avoiding the question, though.

Quote:

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).

The concept isn't too difficult to grasp. It's just dumb. There is no evidence to support it. This video (and the oft-mentioned website) have not established any real correlation between statistical order in random data sets and world events. It's a far cry from suggesting some "field of consciousness."

Here is an excellent critique of the flaws with their methodology.

This is a simple case of wishful thinking, and not good science.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 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.

 

I think I am going to market a super glue for sniffing and call it "X-File". Aimed at the OP, not you Hambi.

Hambi, just admit that you were asking these questions in a fanese approach rather than my "bad cop" blasphemy.

I have no pacience for prolonged deconstructionism. Kudos to you, all joking aside. But the scenic route is just not my cup of tea. How do you do it without pulling your hair out?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


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

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

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

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

No, you won't. The nature of the RNGs I found, but nothing concerning the criteria for determining what marks an important event, nor the rate of false positives, false negatives, and hits. There are many, many questions they do not answer on their website. So quit referring us to it and admit that you don't know the answers to these very important questions.

Quit giving us drive-by comments.

They have listed the CRITERIA for their prediction procedures. Evidently, you did not make a sincere attempt to navigate their website (I suggest you click on "Procedures" on the top of the homepage, then on "Methodology," and finally on "Prediction Procedures" ). In addition, they have already addressed many of the questions you are raising on a side link entitled "GCP FAQ" (Global Consiciousness Project Frequently Asked Questions). Finally, if this does meet with your approval, then I suggest you contact the project lead Roger Nelson. Below is his email address. They welcome skeptical questions!

[email protected]

By the way, it is unreasonable to expect that I would know all the intimate details of a scientific project for which I am not a trained active participant (and I have never made the pretense that I was). Making such demands is really beginning to border on the absurd.

 

 

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


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

Paisley wrote:

They have listed the CRITERIA for their prediction procedures. Evidently, you did not make a sincere attempt to navigate their website (I suggest you click on "Procedures" on the top of the homepage, then on "Methodology," and finally on "Prediction Procedures" ). In addition, they have already addressed many of the questions you are raising on a side link entitled "GCP FAQ" (Global Consiciousness Project Frequently Asked Questions). Finally, if this does meet with your approval, then I suggest you contact the project lead Roger Nelson. Below is his email address. They welcome skeptical questions!

[email protected]

By the way, it is unreasonable to expect that I would know all the intimate details of a scientific project for which I am not a trained active participant (and I have never made the pretense that I was). Making such demands is really beginning to border on the absurd.

I've already read through the site, and specifically the pages you mention. They do not address the questions. Thanks for Roger Nelson's email, though. Not that I'll email him; I already have many of the answers to those questions.

As you might imagine, the questions were asked to point out potential problems with the research procedures. As those problems are not addressed, and indeed seem to be pointedly ignored (especially concerning the mitigation of confirmation bias, and the ratios between false hits and false misses with confirmed hits), it is impossible to take the research seriously.

As presented here, Dean Radin is aware of the problems with false hits, and chooses to ignore them. This is an indication there are serious problems with this "evidence for global consciousness." Again, it appears that this is a case of wishful thinking, rather than a body of evidence for much of anything at all.

You asked for our reactions to that video. Many of us have complied. You have consistently failed to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion, and have in fact dodged valid questions. Your failure to present a coherent defence of the "global mind" hypothesis indicates that you are merely accepting and regurgitating whatever pseudo-science appears to fit in with your worldview, without bothering to think rationally or critically about it.

It is not unreasonable to expect you to think and respond rationally. As you are the one who presents this as evidence of a feature of reality that hasn't been established, it is not unreasonable to expect you to be able to answer simple questions about the validity of this evidence. Your failure to do so is simply more evidence that you hold an irrational an unsupportable worldview.

"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: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
The Criteria for events

In keeping with the exploratory nature of the experiment, there is not a unique criterion for accepting proposals as global events. Event selection is subjective and is guided by experience and consultation. Most events are considered global because they involve the attention or activity of many people around the world and figure prominently in news reports. Thus, a local event such as a natural disaster can be considered global if it gains global attention. Other criteria are used. A few astrological events are accepted because of their non-local (therefore, global) character. Certain prayers and meditations that involve relatively modest numbers of people are accepted because there is a global intention such as world peace.

Wow, that is pretty vague really, because, and we shall see, either a small group can effect this (such certain hmm prayers and meditations that involve a modest group) or it is the attention of a large group of people around the world. However other events that include small about of people can be ignored, and large scale events can be ignored as well if they don't have a large enough attention span.....interesting how they figured their criteria for an event that can affect an RNG that is protected from outside influence (how does it affect it exactly again?)

as well it's odd how a minor game in the world cup 2002 (Argentina vs England although they were playing to get through, it was really a minor game as it was only the second game for that group and there was 2 more games to go, and it was at the beginning of the world cup). Now Germany vs Brazil in my opinion should have scored a much higher score because it was far far more important game and usually has a far higher viewer ship than the beginning games, as well this was South Korea's big draw, no south korean games where shown even though they had higher viewership world wide because of a few things, 1) there was a few beliefs that the referees where being biased for South Korea, 2) they where the massive underdogs. Germany vs South Korea had the largest viewership thoughout the entire cup with the exception of Brazil vs Germany for the final. The difference is 11 million, 52 million for S. Korea vs Germany and 63 million for Germany vs Brazil, this of course being those in the Nielson market of course. Yet it was a minor game at the beginning of the tournament that had a larger impact than the final game and most important and emtional, and fan feverishly watched game. How does do they explain this type of indescrepancy?

As well they have world series games, yet fail to have other sports related game which I would assume have a higher viewership than the world series, such as the championship series or the Eurocup? The reason I assume is because alot more countries watch this, and the last Eurocup had the highest world viewership of all time.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, RNG events showing

Paisley, RNG events showing up hours before the real-world event are NOT evidence for precognition, unless you want to assign this ability to the RNG's themselves.  This is NOT a case of people sensing a future event, no-one apart from a very small group associated with the plan had any consciousness of the evnt at the time those RNG signals showed up, so the RNG's would have to be responding to future consciousness events. The more honest answer is that the correlation in this case was not good, IOW the RNG spike was more likely to be one of the several such spikes that occur each month.

Randomness and/or non-causality is a problem for a coherent picture of any mode of reality, not just 'materialism'. Free will and randomness are inconsistent with reasoned thought processes in any mind, thoughts not based on already known information and experience and previous decisions (such as decisions on future courses of action or goals, ie  purpose) are just chaotic and literally incoherent.

Since certain classes of deterministic systems can be found to match the behaviour of ideal random systems to any arbitrary degree, strict deterministic and purely random/unpredictable behaviour are just two ends of a continuum. The more rapidly the number of identifiable causes contributing to some 'effect' grows as you trace back thru the chain of cause-effect, and the more the effect has some 'feed-back' contributing to the input causes, the more likely is the effect to display unpredictable, chaotic, or random aspects.

So your insistence on a fundamental, dualistic distinction between deterministic and acausal or random events is illusory.

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


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

nigelTheBold wrote:
How does it not preclude libertarian free will

 

? If the results from the 9/11 data are valid, then the event was fixed before the planes ever left the ground. This precludes libertarian free will as it means the passengers did not have the free will to attack the hijackers and prevent the event. It means that the event was determined before it ever happened.

Actually, Dean Radin addresses this very issue (i.e. precognition, the arrow of time, determinism and free will) in his article entitled "Time-reversed Human Experience: Experimental Evidence and Implications." (The link to the online pdf is listed below. You only need be concerned with pg. 22 where he discusses the implications of precognition).

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/timereversed.pdf

Basically, he argues that the experimental evidence (i.e. precognition) suggests that "information flows backwards in time" (and apparently, this does not violate any known physical laws because the laws of physics are supposedly time-symmetrical). He says that time-reversals may cause problems for philosophers because they believe this would necessarily involve logical paradoxes due to "inescapable time recursion." IOW, the future changes the present which in turn changes the future and so forth.

Radin said this would be true only if two special conditions were to hold:

1) The unfolding of future events is absolute (i.e. determinism).

2) Precognition is perfectly accurate.

However, the future is not predetermined, but inherently probabilistic (quantum theory). And also, the evidence obviously shows that precognition is not perfectly accurate.

Radin argues that we may resolve this logical dilemma by resurrecting the Aristotelian idea of "final cauasation" (i.e. teleological influences from the future through time-reversed processes). Free will is compatible with final causation. Indeed, final causation is a prerequisite for free will. For without final causation, there would be no intentional acts, only random acts.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
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?

No, it wasn't in the video. I obtained data from other sources in addition to watching the video, after I offered my first reaction to the video.

Thanks for avoiding the question, though.

I'm not going to respond to something when I have good reason to believe that you didn't bother to watch the video in the OP.  Be that as it may, it is not too difficult to account for the difference. The death of Princess Diana affected many more people (basically women) than the death of Mother Teresa. It's a no-brainer!

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
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).

The concept isn't too difficult to grasp. It's just dumb. There is no evidence to support it.

Actually, there is evidence. First of all, I would argue that most, if not all, people have experienced a shared emotional experience in which they felt some kind of connection to something larger than themselves. This is evidence! Secondly, anyone who has watched sports knows that homefield advantage is a real factor. This is why players are known to say things like "We really feed off the energy from our fans." Thirdly, we know that there have been movements throughout history that lend credence to the idea of a group mind. One just has to think of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Finally, we have scientific evidence in the form of psi research that demonstrates that groups can exert influence upon RNGs (there's 20 years of experiement for this, prior to the GCP).

nigelTheBold wrote:
This video (and the oft-mentioned website) have not established any real correlation between statistical order in random data sets and world events. It's a far cry from suggesting some "field of consciousness."

This is merely your opinion - an opinion that I do not personally hold in high esteem.

nigelTheBold wrote:
This is a simple case of wishful thinking, and not good science.

Actually, it's a simple case of fearful-thinking. You reject the evidence merely because you're fearful that it disconfirms the materialist worldview (which of course, it does). 

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley obviously did not

Paisley obviously did not read my previous post (doesn't bother me that much), where I pointed out the no-brainer observation that the 9/11 data could not be explained by pre-cognition - that would only be indicated by a massive public reaction prior to the event, whereas the reaction only occurred as the events occurred.

You have to postulate that consciousness events project some of their influence back in time. This is still 'paranormal' by typical definitions, but is NOT precognition.

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
Paisley wrote:I'm not going

Paisley wrote:

I'm not going to respond to something when I have good reason to believe that you didn't bother to watch the video in the OP.  Be that as it may, it is not too difficult to account for the difference. The death of Princess Diana affected many more people (basically women) than the death of Mother Teresa. It's a no-brainer!

That's funny. I actually give times and events from throughout the video, and you don't think I watched it. What is your "good reason" to believe I didn't bother to watch the video? Because I disagree with Radin? Because I've presented cogent arguments against his conclusions, and valid criticisms of the "test" procedures?

It's not a no-brainer. This was just one example of many, and your explanation is as sad as Radin's. Mother Teresa's death was observed by millions of people all over the world. If it's about observation and attention (which you yourself contend) then it should've  made a bump in order, but it did not. If it's about emotion (which you denied previously) then perhaps your rationalization might work. But you, as well as Radin, can't keep your story straight.

And the Diana / Mother Teresa example is only one of many. Radin himself is unable to explain away the false hits and false negatives that appear in his own presentations.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

The concept isn't too difficult to grasp. It's just dumb. There is no evidence to support it.

Actually, there is evidence. First of all, I would argue that most, if not all, people have experienced a shared emotional experience in which they felt some kind of connection to something larger than themselves. This is evidence!

That isn't evidence. That's an emotion, as you yourself admit in the description. Unless you are trying to study emotions, that's not evidence for anything.

Quote:

Secondly, anyone who has watched sports knows that homefield advantage is a real factor. This is why players are known to say things like "We really feed off the energy from our fans."

You have a pretty low standard for evidence, don't you?

Quote:

Thirdly, we know that there have been movements throughout history that lend credence to the idea of a group mind. One just has to think of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

How does this support a global mind rather than, say, groupthink? And no, those aren't the same thing.

Quote:

Finally, we have scientific evidence in the form of psi research that demonstrates that groups can exert influence upon RNGs (there's 20 years of experiement for this, prior to the GCP).

Really? If the evidence is as high of a quality as that which Radin presents in the video and the GCP in general, it's a fairly flimsy basis for an hypothesis.

Quote:

This is merely your opinion - an opinion that I do not personally hold in high esteem.

Oh, you wound me, Sir! I think I will surely die from this feeling of pain you have induced in me! My heart truly hurts from your wor... oh, nope. Sorry. It was just gas.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
This is a simple case of wishful thinking, and not good science.

Actually, it's a simple case of fearful-thinking. You reject the evidence merely because you're fearful that it disconfirms the materialist worldview (which of course, it does). 

You are one clever little devil, aren't you? You're so precious!

I don't reject the evidence because I'm fearful. I reject the evidence because it is insubstantial, and peer review by other scientists pretty much brings into question both the GCP's procedures, and their conclusions. The 9/11 analysis by others (which I linked earlier; did you bother  to read it?) claims there is no significant order in the dataset. And yet this is the crown jewel of their data?

The dataset itself contains thousands of locii of increased order in the dataset, uncorrelated with world events. Further, there are hundreds of instances of world events in which there was no deviation from randomness in the dataset, including one of the most-watched, most emotionally-charged events of the last two decades: the US invasion of Iraq. This pretty much destroys any pretense that there is a real correlation between the reduced randomness, and world events.

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley,

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley, RNG events showing up hours before the real-world event are NOT evidence for precognition, unless you want to assign this ability to the RNG's themselves.  This is NOT a case of people sensing a future event, no-one apart from a very small group associated with the plan had any consciousness of the evnt at the time those RNG signals showed up, so the RNG's would have to be responding to future consciousness events. The more honest answer is that the correlation in this case was not good, IOW the RNG spike was more likely to be one of the several such spikes that occur each month.

It may not be precognition in the strictest sense. They (the collective subconscious mind) could be responding to the probable future, which is based on a present forecast of ongoing events.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Randomness and/or non-causality is a problem for a coherent picture of any mode of reality, not just 'materialism'.

This is a not-so-tacit admission that the materialist worldview has problems.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Free will and randomness are inconsistent with reasoned thought processes in any mind, thoughts not based on already known information and experience and previous decisions (such as decisions on future courses of action or goals, ie  purpose) are just chaotic and literally incoherent.

Agreed. Free will and randomness are not compatible. Free will presupposes final causation (as opposed to efficient causation, which is the only form of causation that materialism permits).

On the materialist worldview, all intentional acts are ultimately illusory. Why? Because on the materialist worldview, all intentional acts must be reduced to electro-chemical reactions. And since all electro-chemical reactions are mechanical and nonteleological, then all intentional acts are mechanical and nonteleological. Remember, there is no purpose in the materialist worldview. Any purpose you ascribe to your personal life must ultimately be illusory.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since certain classes of deterministic systems can be found to match the behaviour of ideal random systems to any arbitrary degree, strict deterministic and purely random/unpredictable behaviour are just two ends of a continuum. The more rapidly the number of identifiable causes contributing to some 'effect' grows as you trace back thru the chain of cause-effect, and the more the effect has some 'feed-back' contributing to the input causes, the more likely is the effect to display unpredictable, chaotic, or random aspects.

So your insistence on a fundamental, dualistic distinction between deterministic and acausal or random events is illusory.

It would appear that you're  beginning to waffle. Haven't we been over this before? Chaos theory is a deterministic theory. Quantum theory is not. Chaos theory is only considered unpredictable (or indeterminate) because, for all intents and practical purposes, we cannot DETERMINE how a slight change in initial conditions will play itself out.  

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley, RNG events showing up hours before the real-world event are NOT evidence for precognition, unless you want to assign this ability to the RNG's themselves.  This is NOT a case of people sensing a future event, no-one apart from a very small group associated with the plan had any consciousness of the evnt at the time those RNG signals showed up, so the RNG's would have to be responding to future consciousness events. The more honest answer is that the correlation in this case was not good, IOW the RNG spike was more likely to be one of the several such spikes that occur each month.

It may not be precognition in the strictest sense. They (the collective subconscious mind) could be responding to the probable future, which is based on a present forecast of ongoing events.

But what evidence do we have that there was a major sub-conscious event prior to the attacks, for the RNG's to respond to?? If you are somehow going to use the RNG event as indicating a major precognitive sub-conscious reaction to an event that had not yet happened, then you can't use that RNG event as any sort of proof that it is affected by such events, that would be circular.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Randomness and/or non-causality is a problem for a coherent picture of any mode of reality, not just 'materialism'.

This is a not-so-tacit admission that the materialist worldview has problems.

Hardly, although I probably would have expressed my actual viewpoint more clearly with an "If.." in front of that statement. Randomness and related QM-style elements of non-causality have to be addressed by any serious model of even 'mental' processes, not just your concept of reductionist 'materialism'. The only arguably 'non-causal' aspects of reality in naturalistic theories relate to the timing of Planck scale events - their probability functions are still deterministic and fully calculable.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Free will and randomness are inconsistent with reasoned thought processes in any mind, thoughts not based on already known information and experience and previous decisions (such as decisions on future courses of action or goals, ie  purpose) are just chaotic and literally incoherent.

Agreed. Free will and randomness are not compatible. Free will presupposes final causation (as opposed to efficient causation, which is the only form of causation that materialism permits).

Both 'free will' and 'final causation' are highly questionable, and indeed subjective, concepts.

Quote:

On the materialist worldview, all intentional acts are ultimately illusory. Why? Because on the materialist worldview, all intentional acts must be reduced to electro-chemical reactions. And since all electro-chemical reactions are mechanical and nonteleological, then all intentional acts are mechanical and nonteleological. Remember, there is no purpose in the materialist worldview. Any purpose you ascribe to your personal life must ultimately be illusory.

The ultimate low-level mechanics of any high-level process do not have to share the emergent attributes of the high-level process. 'Purpose' describes a particular aspect or pattern in the thoughts of a conscious process manifested by a brain. It is true but irrelevant that you can't ascribe 'purpose' to the individual chemical reactions underlying the process of consciousness.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since certain classes of deterministic systems can be found to match the behaviour of ideal random systems to any arbitrary degree, strict deterministic and purely random/unpredictable behaviour are just two ends of a continuum. The more rapidly the number of identifiable causes contributing to some 'effect' grows as you trace back thru the chain of cause-effect, and the more the effect has some 'feed-back' contributing to the input causes, the more likely is the effect to display unpredictable, chaotic, or random aspects.

So your insistence on a fundamental, dualistic distinction between deterministic and acausal or random events is illusory.

It would appear that you're  beginning to waffle. Haven't we been over this before? Chaos theory is a deterministic theory. Quantum theory is not. Chaos theory is only considered unpredictable (or indeterminate) because, for all intents and practical purposes, we cannot DETERMINE how a slight change in initial conditions will play itself out.  

But finite chaotic systems can be devised to make the measurement and calculation precision required to predict the trajectory as small as you want, while still never actually zero. This really does make the distinction between a chaotic system and a stochastic system (one with a random component) an academic point. I am sorry if you don't grasp the significance of this, that's your problem.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

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

I believe your fellow atheist (HisWillness) stated in another thread that all we have is "correlations and observations," no causation.

Yeah, and Radin is writing conclusions with causation clearly implied. His conclusion is that consciousness is affecting the RNGs. Not that his criteria for selecting events might be non-specific.

Paisley wrote:
Incidentally, Radin did not dogmatically conclude that there is a collective mind. He merely suggested that it is a possibility.

His hypothesis remains weak.

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:

Paisley wrote:

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

I believe your fellow atheist (HisWillness) stated in another thread that all we have is "correlations and observations," no causation.

Yeah, and Radin is writing conclusions with causation clearly implied. His conclusion is that consciousness is affecting the RNGs. Not that his criteria for selecting events might be non-specific.

Paisley wrote:
Incidentally, Radin did not dogmatically conclude that there is a collective mind. He merely suggested that it is a possibility.

His hypothesis remains weak.

Isn't that the way all "conclusion first, data later" research is?  When one can't prove the conclusion claimed, it becomes just a "possibility".

"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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Isn't that

jcgadfly wrote:

Isn't that the way all "conclusion first, data later" research is?  When one can't prove the conclusion claimed, it becomes just a "possibility".

Haha - very true. But when you have certain mechanisms in place, even the most misleading of psychological studies' conclusions can be seen for what they are: the result of weak study design. Psychological studies already take plenty of flak from the physical sciences for their lack of rigour and applicability.

For instance, when Radin says that they looked at something coiciding to around one billion people waiting to hear the OJ Simpson verdict, did they consider that one billion people (possibly) sitting still for that period of time might have an effect? It's just something that could cause an effect rather than "attention", and it seems to be ignored.

If we can presume that people were paying attention, surely we can presume that they were sitting still. At least that's a physical thing that can be measured.

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


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

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

I'm not going to respond to something when I have good reason to believe that you didn't bother to watch the video in the OP.  Be that as it may, it is not too difficult to account for the difference. The death of Princess Diana affected many more people (basically women) than the death of Mother Teresa. It's a no-brainer!

It's not a no-brainer. This was just one example of many, and your explanation is as sad as Radin's. Mother Teresa's death was observed by millions of people all over the world. If it's about observation and attention (which you yourself contend) then it should've  made a bump in order, but it did not. If it's about emotion (which you denied previously) then perhaps your rationalization might work. But you, as well as Radin, can't keep your story straight.

And the Diana / Mother Teresa example is only one of many. Radin himself is unable to explain away the false hits and false negatives that appear in his own presentations.

It's a no-brainer because the death of Princess Diana trumped the death of Mother Teresa. The world's attention was clearly on Diana's death, not Mother Teresa's.  

Quote:
Diana's death was met with extraordinary public expressions of grief, and her funeral at Westminster Abbey on 6 September drew an estimated 3 million[19] mourners and onlookers in London, as well as worldwide television coverage, which overshadowed the news of the death the previous day of Mother Teresa in Calcutta.

(source: Wikipedia: Death of Diana, Princess of Wales)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

There can be little doubt that more women identified with Princess Diana than Mother Teresa (even in Catholic circles). And I think we can attribute this to a media given to the manufacturing of celebrity gossip and idol worship. 

Quote:
During the four weeks following her funeral, the overall suicide rate in England and Wales rose by 17% and cases of deliberate self harm by 44.3%, compared with the average reported for that period in the four previous years. Researchers suggest that this was caused by the "identification" effect, as the greatest increase in suicides was by people most similar to Diana: women aged 25 to 44, whose suicide rate increased by over 45%.[30]

(source: Wikipedia: Death of Diana, Princess of Wales)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Thirdly, we know that there have been movements throughout history that lend credence to the idea of a group mind. One just has to think of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

How does this support a global mind rather than, say, groupthink? And no, those aren't the same thing.

It's supports a group mind - something that can properly be described as demonic.

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
A group of people threatend

A group of people threatend with imprisonment and death for not following the party line no more supports a group mind than all thos people looking at JFK as he said "Ich bin ein Berliner" turned him into a jelly donut.

"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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:it's a

Paisley wrote:

it's a no-brainer because the death of Princess Diana trumped the death of Mother Teresa. The world's attention was clearly on Diana's death, not Mother Teresa's. 

Yet there are other examples, for example the 2002 world cup final vs the England/Argentina game. The fact that South Korea vs Germany didn't get a bump, yet more people watched that game than the England and Argentina game. That throws out your theory now. It's not about world attention.


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

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:

it's a no-brainer because the death of Princess Diana trumped the death of Mother Teresa. The world's attention was clearly on Diana's death, not Mother Teresa's. 

Yet there are other examples, for example the 2002 world cup final vs the England/Argentina game. The fact that South Korea vs Germany didn't get a bump, yet more people watched that game than the England and Argentina game. That throws out your theory now. It's not about world attention.

Roger Nelson said you cannot draw a conclusion based on a single event. You have to look at the cummulative results. After ten years of data, the cummulative results suggest that the odds that the deviations are due purely to chance are greater than one in a million.

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:

it's a no-brainer because the death of Princess Diana trumped the death of Mother Teresa. The world's attention was clearly on Diana's death, not Mother Teresa's. 

Yet there are other examples, for example the 2002 world cup final vs the England/Argentina game. The fact that South Korea vs Germany didn't get a bump, yet more people watched that game than the England and Argentina game. That throws out your theory now. It's not about world attention.

Roger Nelson said you cannot draw a conclusion based on a single event. You have to look at the cummulative results. After ten years of data, the cummulative results suggest that the odds that the deviations are due purely to chance are greater than one in a million.

That is not, even in principle, demonstrably true, because what they are correlating against are inherently subjective assessments of the significance of various events to the 'global consciousness'. The flaws are strongly suggested by the poor time correlation of probably the most significant consciousness-grabbing events of our time, 9/11.

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
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:

it's a no-brainer because the death of Princess Diana trumped the death of Mother Teresa. The world's attention was clearly on Diana's death, not Mother Teresa's. 

Yet there are other examples, for example the 2002 world cup final vs the England/Argentina game. The fact that South Korea vs Germany didn't get a bump, yet more people watched that game than the England and Argentina game. That throws out your theory now. It's not about world attention.

Roger Nelson said you cannot draw a conclusion based on a single event. You have to look at the cummulative results. After ten years of data, the cummulative results suggest that the odds that the deviations are due purely to chance are greater than one in a million.

So all the stuff you wrote about Princess Diana and Mother Theresa's deaths was bull? Those were single events - just the thing that Nelson said you can't draw a conclusion from. Nonetheless you and Radin managed to.

"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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:

it's a no-brainer because the death of Princess Diana trumped the death of Mother Teresa. The world's attention was clearly on Diana's death, not Mother Teresa's. 

Yet there are other examples, for example the 2002 world cup final vs the England/Argentina game. The fact that South Korea vs Germany didn't get a bump, yet more people watched that game than the England and Argentina game. That throws out your theory now. It's not about world attention.

Roger Nelson said you cannot draw a conclusion based on a single event. You have to look at the cummulative results. After ten years of data, the cummulative results suggest that the odds that the deviations are due purely to chance are greater than one in a million.

So now they are picking how their experiment works if it looks like global consciousness then it works if it doesn't then, well we have to look at the cummlative results? Either Diana's death as you argued trumped the death of Mother Tersea because the world attention was on Diana's death and single events matter or it doesn't and the whole experiment is bull. You cannot pick and choose, single event have to make a difference otherwise the hypthesis is out the door.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:So-called

natural wrote:
So-called 'quantum indeterminacy' is a bogus term. All that has been demonstrated is quantum uncertainty and probabilistic wave distributions. Neither of these have been shown to be actually non-deterministic. There is no actual 'quantum indeterminacy' in physics. It is, at best, one possible interpretation of QM, but in the case of Paisley and his pseudoscientific buddies, it's a nonsense term to bolster their quantum mysticism.

Quantum indeterminacy is part and parcel of the the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (the standard interpretation).

Quote:
Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."[14] and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?"[15] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".

(source: Wikipedia: Copenhagen interpretation)

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

 

 

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:natural

Paisley wrote:

natural wrote:
So-called 'quantum indeterminacy' is a bogus term. All that has been demonstrated is quantum uncertainty and probabilistic wave distributions. Neither of these have been shown to be actually non-deterministic. There is no actual 'quantum indeterminacy' in physics. It is, at best, one possible interpretation of QM, but in the case of Paisley and his pseudoscientific buddies, it's a nonsense term to bolster their quantum mysticism.

Quantum indeterminacy is part and parcel of the the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (the standard interpretation).

Quote:
Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."[14] and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?"[15] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".

(source: Wikipedia: Copenhagen interpretation)

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

Don't conflate indeterminacy with non-deterministic. Indeterminate means 'not certain, known or established'. Non-deterministic means not determined by preceding causes. Not quite the same thing.

Note -  dice still work in a deterministic universe...

 

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Quantum indeterminacy is part and parcel of the the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (the standard interpretation).

Quote:
Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."[14] and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?"[15] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do".

(source: Wikipedia: Copenhagen interpretation)

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

Don't conflate indeterminacy with non-deterministic. Indeterminate means 'not certain, known or established'. Non-deterministic means not determined by preceding causes. Not quite the same thing.

Actually, the term indeterminate (not unlike many words) has several definitions, depending on the context.

Quote:
indeterminism 1 a: a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b: a theory that holds that not every event has a cause 2: the quality or state of being indeterminate ; especially : unpredictability

(soucrce: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminism

In the context of QM, it means that quantum events are uncaused. Also, the Wikipedia article on the Copenhagen Interpretatation (which I quoted previously) used the term non-deterministic, which by your own admission means "not predetermined by preceding causes."

BobSpence1 wrote:
Note -  dice still work in a deterministic universe...

Yeah, but according to Bohr (one of the formulators of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM), these aren't ordinary dice - they're quantum dice. And the tossing of quantum dice has no antecedent cause! 

Quote:
Bohr's original response to Einstein was that entangled particles are part of an indivisible system. Einstein's challenge led to decades of research into quantum entanglement, which has confirmed Bohr's assertion that entangled particles must be viewed as one whole, and that difficulties arise only if one insists on the reality of outcomes of measurements not made. It appears that God does indeed throw dice, although rather peculiar ones. A real dice throw can be completely understood using the laws of classical mechanics, and the outcome is merely a function of the initial conditions. However the outcome of tossing quantum "dice" has no antecedent; it has as yet no discernible cause.

(source: Wikipedia: Introduction to quantum mechanics)

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

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quantum phenomenon obey

Quantum phenomenon obey clear physical laws, the random elements follow precisely defined statistical probabilities, they do not violate physical conservation laws except in a very temporary sense, as in the appearance of virtual particles within tightly defined limits defined by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. This did require extension of the scientific understanding of the nature of matter and energy, as did most advances in the field.

Nothing in this is remotely relevant to questions of 'free will' or the 'supernatural'.

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


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

Paisley wrote:
It's a no-brainer because the death of Princess Diana trumped the death of Mother Teresa.

Paisley, this is the funniest thing you've ever said.

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
It may not be precognition in the strictest sense. They (the collective subconscious mind) could be responding to the probable future, which is based on a present forecast of ongoing events.

But what evidence do we have that there was a major sub-conscious event prior to the attacks, for the RNG's to respond to??

Granted, this is only one incident and it would be premature to draw a conclusion based on one incident. However, this isn't the only event. The GCP is an ongoing experiment. Many other major events have occurred since 9/11 and many more are yet to come. We will have to wait and see how the results play out.

Also, irrespective of the results of the GCP, parapsychologists have already produced experimental results to establish that precognition is a real phenomenon.

BobSpence1 wrote:
If you are somehow going to use the RNG event as indicating a major precognitive sub-conscious reaction to an event that had not yet happened, then you can't use that RNG event as any sort of proof that it is affected by such events, that would be circular.

What exactly are you objecting to here? The experimental design? Or, the logical impossibility of precognition itself?

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
This is a not-so-tacit admission that the materialist worldview has problems.

Hardly, although I probably would have expressed my actual viewpoint more clearly with an "If.." in front of that statement. Randomness and related QM-style elements of non-causality have to be addressed by any serious model of even 'mental' processes, not just your concept of reductionist 'materialism'. The only arguably 'non-causal' aspects of reality in naturalistic theories relate to the timing of Planck scale events - their probability functions are still deterministic and fully calculable.

This is ridiculous. The only deterministic interpretations/theories of QM are Everett's "many worlds" interpretation and Bohm's "pilot wave theory." Both have major metaphysical implications and I am more than happy to discuss the implications.

CCC (consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function) interpretation is clearly the most parsimonious. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Agreed. Free will and randomness are not compatible. Free will presupposes final causation (as opposed to efficient causation, which is the only form of causation that materialism permits).

Both 'free will' and 'final causation' are highly questionable, and indeed subjective, concepts.

But subjectivity is an objective fact of existence. Indeed, without it, we would not be having this debate.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
On the materialist worldview, all intentional acts are ultimately illusory. Why? Because on the materialist worldview, all intentional acts must be reduced to electro-chemical reactions. And since all electro-chemical reactions are mechanical and nonteleological, then all intentional acts are mechanical and nonteleological. Remember, there is no purpose in the materialist worldview. Any purpose you ascribe to your personal life must ultimately be illusory.

The ultimate low-level mechanics of any high-level process do not have to share the emergent attributes of the high-level process.

The materialist is asking us to believe that consciousness somehow magically emerges from insentient electro-chemical processes. The only problem with this explanation is that your worldview precludes the possibility of invoking magic or miracles.

BobSpence1 wrote:
'Purpose' describes a particular aspect or pattern in the thoughts of a conscious process manifested by a brain. It is true but irrelevant that you can't ascribe 'purpose' to the individual chemical reactions underlying the process of consciousness.

The bottom line is that the materialist is forced by the logical dictates of his worldview to admit that all intentional acts are ultimately illusory.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
It would appear that you're beginning to waffle. Haven't we been over this before? Chaos theory is a deterministic theory. Quantum theory is not. Chaos theory is only considered unpredictable (or indeterminate) because, for all intents and practical purposes, we cannot DETERMINE how a slight change in initial conditions will play itself out. 

But finite chaotic systems can be devised to make the measurement and calculation precision required to predict the trajectory as small as you want, while still never actually zero. This really does make the distinction between a chaotic system and a stochastic system (one with a random component) an academic point. I am sorry if you don't grasp the significance of this, that's your problem.

I'm the one who should be offering my condolences here, not you. I'm sorry that you have failed to grasp the fact that chaos theory is a deterministic one. Quantum theory is not.

Quote:
As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

(source: Wikipedia: Chaos theory)

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

"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
HisWillness wrote:Paisley

HisWillness wrote:
Paisley wrote:
It's a no-brainer because the death of Princess Diana trumped the death of Mother Teresa.

Paisley, this is the funniest thing you've ever said.

It would appear that you're easily amused.

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


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

Paisley wrote:

This is ridiculous. The only deterministic interpretations/theories of QM are Everett's "many worlds" interpretation and Bohm's "pilot wave theory." Both have major metaphysical implications and I am more than happy to discuss the implications.

CCC (consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function) interpretation is clearly the most parsimonious. 

This is entirely incorrect. There are several deterministic models, including causal dynamical triangulation and causal sets. The interesting thing about CDT is its ability to predict the observed nature of the universe from a minimal set of assumptions. One of those assumptions, as the name implies, is causality. This is significantly more parsimonious than CCC.

You must've forgotten CDT from our previous discussions.

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:Quantum

BobSpence1 wrote:
Quantum phenomenon obey clear physical laws, the random elements follow precisely defined statistical probabilities, they do not violate physical conservation laws except in a very temporary sense, as in the appearance of virtual particles within tightly defined limits defined by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. This did require extension of the scientific understanding of the nature of matter and energy, as did most advances in the field.

Strike 1: Quantum indeteminism really does mean that physical events happen without physical cause.

Strike 2: Virtual paticles really do violate the physical-closure principle. 

Strike 3: Quantum entanglement really does mean that "spooky action takes place at a distance." 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Nothing in this is remotely relevant to questions of 'free will' or the 'supernatural'.

Actually, there are eminent scientists (e.g. Roger Penrose, Henry Stapp ) that actually do think that there is a connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness.

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

And the so-called anomalies of psi phenomena mesh well with the so-called anomalies of quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, those who are wedded to the dogma of atheistic materialism are too closed-minded to see the relationship.

"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:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
CCC (consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function) interpretation is clearly the most parsimonious.

This is entirely incorrect. There are several deterministic models, including causal dynamical triangulation and causal sets. The interesting thing about CDT is its ability to predict the observed nature of the universe from a minimal set of assumptions. One of those assumptions, as the name implies, is causality. This is significantly more parsimonious than CCC.

You must've forgotten CDT from our previous discussions.

I've read the article regarding CDT in Scientific American. It does not account for quantum indeterminacy.

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


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

Paisley wrote:

I've read the article regarding CDT in Scientific American. It does not account for quantum indeterminacy.

The Scientific American article I read certainly explained that. Basically, it states that, at the planck scale, the universe is fractal. This accounts for the statistical nature of quantum events. The only way you wouldn't have quantum randomness was if the universe were smooth at those scales. CDT says the universe is not smooth.

So again, CDT is more parsimonious than CCC. It's actually quite exciting, as it describes a universe that has 2 dimensions at the planck scale, and 4 dimensions at "our" scale. That means the geometry of the universe is fractal on several levels, which is just weird, and very cool.

 

"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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
It may not be precognition in the strictest sense. They (the collective subconscious mind) could be responding to the probable future, which is based on a present forecast of ongoing events.

But what evidence do we have that there was a major sub-conscious event prior to the attacks, for the RNG's to respond to??

Granted, this is only one incident and it would be premature to draw a conclusion based on one incident. However, this isn't the only event. The GCP is an ongoing experiment. Many other major events have occurred since 9/11 and many more are yet to come. We will have to wait and see how the results play out.

Also, irrespective of the results of the GCP, parapsychologists have already produced experimental results to establish that precognition is a real phenomenon.

That's debatable, but at least you have to concede that the 9-11 RHG record was not evidence for precognition, unless the  RNG's were the doing it...

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
If you are somehow going to use the RNG event as indicating a major precognitive sub-conscious reaction to an event that had not yet happened, then you can't use that RNG event as any sort of proof that it is affected by such events, that would be circular.

What exactly are you objecting to here? The experimental design? Or, the logical impossibility of precognition itself?

Simply that you can't both attempt to explain the anomaly (the mismatch in timing) by assuming some sort of precognition, AND use it as evidence for precognition. On further thought, that may not be strictly true, depending on the availability of alternative explanations, which in this case are readily available in the form of chance. IOW the explanation for mismatched data is highly likely to be that this is just one of the many such deviations that occur with no obvious correlation.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
This is a not-so-tacit admission that the materialist worldview has problems.

Hardly, although I probably would have expressed my actual viewpoint more clearly with an "If.." in front of that statement. Randomness and related QM-style elements of non-causality have to be addressed by any serious model of even 'mental' processes, not just your concept of reductionist 'materialism'. The only arguably 'non-causal' aspects of reality in naturalistic theories relate to the timing of Planck scale events - their probability functions are still deterministic and fully calculable.

This is ridiculous. The only deterministic interpretations/theories of QM are Everett's "many worlds" interpretation and Bohm's "pilot wave theory." Both have major metaphysical implications and I am more than happy to discuss the implications.

CCC (consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function) interpretation is clearly the most parsimonious. 

No. You didn't get it. The wave function itself is precisely described by the math - it is determined

If CCC is valid  it is still deterministic - you yourself are claiming it is caused, by observation. It may not be obviously materialistic, to refer to your favorite straw-man, but if it directly caused by some other action, it is, by definition, deterministic. The actual state into which it collapses is determined by the state of the wave-function at that instant...

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Agreed. Free will and randomness are not compatible. Free will presupposes final causation (as opposed to efficient causation, which is the only form of causation that materialism permits).

Both 'free will' and 'final causation' are highly questionable, and indeed subjective, concepts.

But subjectivity is an objective fact of existence. Indeed, without it, we would not be having this debate.

Which I have never denied. My point was that 'free will' in particular is a purely subjective feeling with no actual demonstrable meaning outside that feeling. I was a little glib in letting that description apply to 'final causation', which is a dubious concept implying reverse causation or some other equally questionable idea.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
On the materialist worldview, all intentional acts are ultimately illusory. Why? Because on the materialist worldview, all intentional acts must be reduced to electro-chemical reactions. And since all electro-chemical reactions are mechanical and nonteleological, then all intentional acts are mechanical and nonteleological. Remember, there is no purpose in the materialist worldview. Any purpose you ascribe to your personal life must ultimately be illusory.

The ultimate low-level mechanics of any high-level process do not have to share the emergent attributes of the high-level process.

The materialist is asking us to believe that consciousness somehow magically emerges from insentient electro-chemical processes. The only problem with this explanation is that your worldview precludes the possibility of invoking magic or miracles.

My point was that there is nothing magical required. Sentience is a process requiring complex structures of systematically interacting elements. 

You obviously neither accept or understand emergence, which is a topic for another thread perhaps.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
'Purpose' describes a particular aspect or pattern in the thoughts of a conscious process manifested by a brain. It is true but irrelevant that you can't ascribe 'purpose' to the individual chemical reactions underlying the process of consciousness.

The bottom line is that the materialist is forced by the logical dictates of his worldview to admit that all intentional acts are ultimately illusory.

Only the strictly reductionist materialist.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
It would appear that you're beginning to waffle. Haven't we been over this before? Chaos theory is a deterministic theory. Quantum theory is not. Chaos theory is only considered unpredictable (or indeterminate) because, for all intents and practical purposes, we cannot DETERMINE how a slight change in initial conditions will play itself out. 

But finite chaotic systems can be devised to make the measurement and calculation precision required to predict the trajectory as small as you want, while still never actually zero. This really does make the distinction between a chaotic system and a stochastic system (one with a random component) an academic point. I am sorry if you don't grasp the significance of this, that's your problem.

I'm the one who should be offering my condolences here, not you. I'm sorry that you have failed to grasp the fact that chaos theory is a deterministic one. Quantum theory is not.

Quote:
As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

(source: Wikipedia: Chaos theory)

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

I have already pointed out, ad nauseum, that this whole determinism/indeterministic/nondeterministic set of concepts do not do justice to the modern insights into these things.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I have

BobSpence1 wrote:

I have already pointed out, ad nauseum, that this whole determinism/indeterministic/nondeterministic set of concepts do not do justice to the modern insights into these things.

That's the end of the cycle. Now it begins again!

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


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

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Roger Nelson said you cannot draw a conclusion based on a single event. You have to look at the cummulative results. After ten years of data, the cummulative results suggest that the odds that the deviations are due purely to chance are greater than one in a million.

So now they are picking how their experiment works if it looks like global consciousness then it works if it doesn't then, well we have to look at the cummlative results?

That's how parapsychology experiments work. Every incident doesn't have to score positive. You merely have to show that the cummulative results are greater than chance. Obviously, the greater the odds against chance the more compelling the evidence. 

latincanuck wrote:
Either Diana's death as you argued trumped the death of Mother Tersea because the world attention was on Diana's death and single events matter or it doesn't and the whole experiment is bull. You cannot pick and choose, single event have to make a difference otherwise the hypthesis is out the door.

I was simply stating a fact. Diana's death did garner more of the world's attention than Mother Teresa's.  Also, Radin and Nelson were specifically testing for Diana's funeral, not Mother Teresa's. It was simply happenstance that Mother Teresa died the day before Diana's funeral.

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Roger Nelson said you cannot draw a conclusion based on a single event. You have to look at the cummulative results. After ten years of data, the cummulative results suggest that the odds that the deviations are due purely to chance are greater than one in a million.

So now they are picking how their experiment works if it looks like global consciousness then it works if it doesn't then, well we have to look at the cummlative results?

That's how parapsychology experiments work. Every incident doesn't have to score positive. You merely have to show that the cummulative results are greater than chance. Obviously, the greater the odds against chance the more compelling the evidence. 

latincanuck wrote:
Either Diana's death as you argued trumped the death of Mother Tersea because the world attention was on Diana's death and single events matter or it doesn't and the whole experiment is bull. You cannot pick and choose, single event have to make a difference otherwise the hypthesis is out the door.

I was simply stating a fact. Diana's death did garner more of the world's attention than Mother Teresa's.  Also, Radin and Nelson were specifically testing for Diana's funeral, not Mother Teresa's. It was simply happenstance that Mother Teresa died the day before Diana's funeral.

In other words, in the field of parapsychology, even if the experiment you do completely destroys your conclusion, your conclusion is still correct.

And you still can't see your self-contradiction.

"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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Also, irrespective of the results of the GCP, parapsychologists have already produced experimental results to establish that precognition is a real phenomenon.

That's debatable, but at least you have to concede that the 9-11 RHG record was not evidence for precognition, unless the RNG's were the doing it...

I will concede that in this particular case the evidence is not conclusive. However, I will not concede that there is no evidence for precognition.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
What exactly are you objecting to here? The experimental design? Or, the logical impossibility of precognition itself?

Simply that you can't both attempt to explain the anomaly (the mismatch in timing) by assuming some sort of precognition, AND use it as evidence for precognition. On further thought, that may not be strictly true, depending on the availability of alternative explanations, which in this case are readily available in the form of chance. IOW the explanation for mismatched data is highly likely to be that this is just one of the many such deviations that occur with no obvious correlation.

The only problem with your analysis is that Radin and Nelson have calculated the odds against chance for the entire project, which at this time stands as a million to one.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
This is ridiculous. The only deterministic interpretations/theories of QM are Everett's "many worlds" interpretation and Bohm's "pilot wave theory." Both have major metaphysical implications and I am more than happy to discuss the implications.

CCC (consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function) interpretation is clearly the most parsimonious.

No. You didn't get it. The wave function itself is precisely described by the math - it is determined.

Probabilistically determined simply means that you can determine the probabilities, not the actual outcome. The former is the determinate aspect, the latter is the indeterminate aspect!

BobSpence1 wrote:
If CCC is valid it is still deterministic - you yourself are claiming it is caused, by observation. It may not be obviously materialistic, to refer to your favorite straw-man, but if it directly caused by some other action, it is, by definition, deterministic. The actual state into which it collapses is determined by the state of the wave-function at that instant...

If consciousness collapses the wave function, then it is free will that causes the wave function to collapse. Free will implies self-determinism.

By the way, while materialism entails determinism by definition, the converse is not necessarily true. IOW, determinism does not necessarily imply materialism.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
But subjectivity is an objective fact of existence. Indeed, without it, we would not be having this debate.

Which I have never denied. My point was that 'free will' in particular is a purely subjective feeling with no actual demonstrable meaning outside that feeling. I was a little glib in letting that description apply to 'final causation', which is a dubious concept implying reverse causation or some other equally questionable idea.

There is no scientific evidence that demonstrates the free will is purely illusory. You're simply stating an opinion, not a scientific fact. Also, the laws of physics are time symmetrical. In fact, physicist John Cramer (University of Washington) will be conducting an experiment to test for quantum retrocausality.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The materialist is asking us to believe that consciousness somehow magically emerges from insentient electrochemical processes. The only problem with this explanation is that your worldview precludes the possibility of magic or miracles.

My point was that there is nothing magical required. Sentience is a process requiring complex structures of systematically interacting elements. 

You obviously neither accept or understand emergence, which is a topic for another thread perhaps.

I understand the concept of emergence. And I never said that I didn't accept it. However, I do have a problem with materialists employing the term in regards to consciousness. Simply saying that consciousness emerges when some level of complexity is achieved is tantamount to magic.

There are two forms of emergence - weak and strong. Weak emergence is reductionistic. Strong emergence is not; it's holistic -and it is probably best understood by the expression "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Weak emergence is what is invoked in science. Strong emergence is invoked in philosophy - mainly for supervenient theories of mind.

Now, I can understand how a higher-level "collective mind" can emerge through the unity of lower-level constituent minds. This idea is at least logically plausible. But the idea that consciousness emerges from insentient bits of matter in motion simply when a certain complexity level is achieved is just plain absurd.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The bottom line is that the materialist is forced by the logical dictates of his worldview to admit that all intentional acts are ultimately illusory.

Only the strictly reductionist materialist.

The supervenient theory of mind (which is non-reductive) is actually dualistic, not materialistic.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I have already pointed out, ad nauseum, that this whole determinism/indeterministic/nondeterministic set of concepts do not do justice to the modern insights into these things.

I don't care how sick it makes you. Indeterminism is NOT compatible with materialism. And the fact that you are vacillating on this topic leads me to believe that your nausea will continue.

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


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Will called it. The cycle

Will called it. The cycle begins again.

 

Also:

Quote:
I understand the concept of emergence. And I never said that I didn't accept it. However, I do have a problem with materialists employing the term in regards to consciousness. Simply saying that consciousness emerges when some level of complexity is achieved is tantamount to magic.

Not really. It's tantamount to saying "We don't know yet." Tantamount to magic would be "We don't know yet and never will."

Quote:
There are two forms of emergence - weak and strong. Weak emergence is reductionistic. Strong emergence is not; it's holistic -and it is probably best understood by the expression "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Weak emergence is what is invoked in science. Strong emergence is invoked in philosophy - mainly for supervenient theories of mind.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Not all science says weak emergence is true and strong emergence is false. What you're trying, and failing, to do here is try to make it seem like *all* hypotheses about emergence in science are weak and then say "This is stupid." It's simply not the case- there are a broad range of ideas about emergence in all sorts of fields, and they are certainly not all reductionist.

Quote:
Now, I can understand how a higher-level "collective mind" can emerge through the unity of lower-level constituent minds.

You can? Because I can't. From the evidence that Dean Radin has given, it seems more like wishful thinking.

Quote:
But the idea that consciousness emerges from insentient bits of matter in motion simply when a certain complexity level is achieved is just plain absurd.

Oh? Is it also just as absurd to think that life emerged from non-living organic material when a certain level of complexity was achieved?

....Wait, that happened.

Additionally: Will, did Paisley just quote from Answers In Genesis or a variant thereof? Inquiring minds want to know.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
I predict this thread will

I predict this thread will end in the same way it began.

 

 

I also have faith that nothing will come from this.

 

 

 

Do not misjudge my conviction!

Theism is why we can't have nice things.