that's the industrial definition of hardware number generators, someone should bring sources claiming otherwise |
no GCP is not continuation of PEAR, prove it, there are plenty other contributors, even it were, Stanley's article is about something else |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Independent scientists Edwin May and James Spottiswoode conducted an analysis of the data around the 11 September 2001 events and concluded that there was no statistically significant change in the randomness of the GCP data during the attacks and the apparent significant deviation that was reported by Nelson and Radin only existed in their chosen time window.<ref name="MaySpottiswoode">May, E.C e.a. [http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/Sep1101.pdf ''Global Consciousness Project: An Independent Analysis of The 11 September 2001 Events'']</ref> Spikes and fluctuations are to be expected in any random distribution of data, and there is no set time frame for how close a spike has to be to a given event for the GCP to find a correlation.<ref name="MaySpottiswoode" /> |
Independent scientists Edwin May and James Spottiswoode conducted an analysis of the data around the 11 September 2001 events and concluded that there was no statistically significant change in the randomness of the GCP data during the attacks and the apparent significant deviation that was reported by Nelson and Radin only existed in their chosen time window.<ref name="MaySpottiswoode">May, E.C e.a. [http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/Sep1101.pdf ''Global Consciousness Project: An Independent Analysis of The 11 September 2001 Events'']</ref> Spikes and fluctuations are to be expected in any random distribution of data, and there is no set time frame for how close a spike has to be to a given event for the GCP to find a correlation.<ref name="MaySpottiswoode" /> |
||
Concerns have been raised about the actual randomness of [[random number generators]] used in these experiments. <ref name="Jeffers2006">Jeffers, S. 2006 [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy The PEAR Proposition: Fact or Fallacy?] ''Skeptical Inquirer''. 30 (3), Accessed 27 September 2009. </ref> Baseline binds of random number generators frequently show deviations from expectations that exceed the criterion PEAR set for determining significance (p>0.05). When combined with the failure of both PEAR and two independent institutes to duplicate significant results in further experiments this throws the findings of PEAR into serious question. <ref name="Jeffers2006" /> |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
Revision as of 14:26, 27 September 2009
The Global Consciousness Project (GCP, also called the EGG Project) is an experiment begun in 1998 that aims to detect potential interactions of global consciousness with physical systems, by generating random numbers and attempting to uncover patterns in them that might correlate with major world events. It maintained by an international collaboration of about 100 research scientists and engineers, based on research from Princeton University.
Skeptics have questioned the methodology of the Global Consciousness Project, particularly how the data are selected and interpreted.[1][2]
Background
Roger D. Nelson developed the project as an extrapolation of two decades of experiments from the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR), a defunct and largely discredited research lab,[3] which appeared to show that electronic noise-based, truly random number generators (RNG or REG, random event generators) seem to be influenced by human consciousness to bring about a less-than-random sequence of data. Jeffers, a professor of physics at York University has questioned the randomness of the numbers produced by the generators due to base blinds that have shown results which would be considered significant by PEAR research parameters (p>.05).
In an extension of the laboratory research called FieldREG, investigators examined the outputs of REGs in the field, before, during and after highly focused or coherent group events. The group events studied included psychotherapy sessions, theater presentations, religious rituals, sports competitions such as the Football World Cup, and television broadcasts like the Academy Awards.[4]
FieldREG was extended to global dimensions in studies looking at data from 12 independent REGs in the US and Europe during a web-promoted "Gaiamind Meditation" in January 1997, and then again in September 1997 after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The results suggested it would be worthwhile to build a permanent network of continuously-running REGs.[citation needed] This became the EGG project or Global Consciousness Project. The spokesman of the GCP is Dean Radin.
Research
The general hypothesis holds that events that have a significant human impact may affect the randomness of data in a statistically significant way. The research examines the output of 65 networked hardware random number generators located around the world, running custom software that reads the output of physical random number generators and records a trial (sum of 200 bits) once every second. The data are sent to a server in Princeton, creating a database of synchronized parallel sequences of truly random numbers. The remote devices have been dubbed Princeton Eggs, where EGG is short for electrogaiagram, a portmanteau of electroencephalogram and Gaia.[5]
The formal analysis consists of a series of replicated tests of the basic hypothesis that the data will show deviations from statistical expectation that are correlated with major events in the world. Before the data are examined, a hypothesis test is fully defined: the beginning and end of the data segment to be analysed and the statistical test to be used are specified in the GCP Hypothesis Registry.[citation needed]
Analysis
Spikes are said to have occurred that were associated with the September 11, 2001 attacks, at the times of the plane impacts and the building collapses, and over the two days following the disaster.[6] GCP claims changes in the level of randomness seen in the EGG data hours and even days before the attacks were themselves caused by the attacks,[7] implying either subconscious mass precognition, or backwards causality (retrocausality).
Independent scientists Edwin May and James Spottiswoode conducted an analysis of the data around the 11 September 2001 events and concluded that there was no statistically significant change in the randomness of the GCP data during the attacks and the apparent significant deviation that was reported by Nelson and Radin only existed in their chosen time window.[8] Spikes and fluctuations are to be expected in any random distribution of data, and there is no set time frame for how close a spike has to be to a given event for the GCP to find a correlation.[8]
See also
References
- ^ ""Terry Schiavo and the Global Consciousness Project" (Skeptic News, April 27, 2005)". Retrieved 2008-05-05.
- ^ Larsen, Claus (1 January 2003). ""An Evening with Dean Radin"". Skeptic Report. Retrieved 2008-05-05.
- ^ Carey, Benedict (2007-02-06). "A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-03.
- ^ Bierman, 1996; Blasband, 2000; Nelson, 1995, 1997; Nelson et al., 1996, 1998a, 1998b; Radin, 1997; Radin et al., 1996.
- ^ "Gathering of a global mind". Retrieved 2008-03-23.
- ^ ""September 11 2001: Exploratory and Contextual Analyses"". Retrieved 2008-07-12.
- ^ ""Extended Analysis: September 11 2001 in Context"". Retrieved 2008-07-12.
- ^ a b May, E.C e.a. Global Consciousness Project: An Independent Analysis of The 11 September 2001 Events
External links
- The Internet-based Global Consciousness Project Global Correlations in Random Data